[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17897-18050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5760]
[[Page 17897]]
Vol. 77
Monday,
No. 58
March 26, 2012
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 65
National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer
Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control
Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards
General Provisions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 17898]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 65
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0871; FRL-9645-1]
RIN 2060-AR00
National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and
Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and
Control Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission
Standards General Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing National Uniform Emission Standards for
Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control
Devices, herein referred to as Uniform Standards. The EPA is also
proposing supplemental revisions to the National Uniform Emission
Standards General Provisions, which were proposed with the National
Uniform Emission Standards for Heat Exchange Systems, signed by the EPA
Administrator on November 30, 2011.
The proposed Uniform Standards would be referenced, as appropriate,
in future revisions to new source performance standards and national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for individual source
categories that are part of the chemical manufacturing and refining
industries that have storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment
leaks or control devices used to control process vents from reactors,
distillation and other operations, as well as from emissions from
storage vessels, transfer operations and equipment leaks that are
routed to control devices. Establishing these Uniform Standards is
consistent with the objectives of Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, issued on January 18, 2011. In the
future, as we periodically review and, if necessary, revise new source
performance standards and national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants, as required by the Clean Air Act, we can direct those
rulemakings to the proposed Uniform Standards, provided the Uniform
Standards meet the applicable statutory stringency requirements for the
specific rulemaking. The proposed Uniform Standards would ensure
consistency and streamline recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
facilities with storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment
leaks and process vents that must comply with multiple regulations.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA by April 10, 2012
requesting to speak at a public hearing, the EPA will hold a public
hearing on or about April 25, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Technical comments pertinent to the Uniform
Standards should be identified as follows:
Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer
Operations should be marked, ``Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0871.''
Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks should be marked,
``Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.''
Uniform Standards for Control Devices should be marked,
``Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.''
Uniform Standards General Provisions or General Comments
on the Uniform Standards should be marked, ``Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870.''
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID No.,
by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and Radiation
Docket Web site.
Email: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (email) to
a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868;
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as
appropriate).
Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate).
Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0871 (as appropriate). Please include a total of two copies. We request
that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868;
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as
appropriate). Such deliveries are only accepted during the normal hours
of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Instructions: All submissions must include agency name and docket
number for this rulemaking. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate). The EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and
be free of any defects or viruses.
[[Page 17899]]
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the proposed
General Provisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards, contact
Brenda Shine, (919) 541-3608, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-3608; Fax number (919) 541-0246;
email address: shine.brenda@epa.gov.
For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission
Standards for Equipment Leaks, contact Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4607; Fax
number (919) 541-0246; email address: howard.jodi@epa.gov.
For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission
Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, contact Nick
Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919)
541-5372; Fax number (919) 541-0246; email address:
parsons.nick@epa.gov.
For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission
Standards For Control Devices, contact Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-4036; Fax
number (919) 541-0246; email address: bouchard.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following
acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.
AMOS ample margin of safety
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
API American Petroleum Institute
AWP Alternative Work Practice
BSER best system of emission reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CAM compliance assurance monitoring
CAR Consolidated Federal Air Rule
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring system
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EFR external floating roof
EIIP Emissions Inventory Improvement Program
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology or management practice
gal/yr gallons per year
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HRVOC highly-reactive volatile organic compound
hr/yr hours per year
ICR information collection request
IFR internal floating roof
in. wc inch water column
kPa kilopascals
LDAR leak detection and repair
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/acm milligram per actual cubic meter
MON Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP
MTVP maximum true vapor pressure
MW megawatts
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OLD organic liquids distribution
PID photo ionization detector
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRD pressure relief device
psia pounds per square inch absolute
psig pounds per square inch gauge
PVC polyvinyl chloride and copolymers
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QA quality assurance
QIP quality improvement program
SOCMI synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
SR stoichiometric air ratio
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
STERPP Storage Tank Emission Reduction Partnership Program
TAC total annual costs
TCI Total capital costs
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S. United States
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound
WWW World Wide Web
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
D. Public Hearing
II. Background Information for These Proposed Rules
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory background for
the proposed Uniform Standards?
B. What is the history and background of the proposed Uniform
Standards?
C. What is the relationship between the Uniform Standards and
the referencing subparts?
D. What are the purpose and benefits of the proposed Uniform
Standards?
E. How were the proposed Uniform Standards developed?
F. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?
III. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National
Uniform Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations--
Subpart I
A. Summary
B. Rationale
IV. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National
Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Subpart J
A. Summary
B. Rationale
V. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National
Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices--Subpart M
A. Summary
B. Rationale
VI. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed Revision of 40 CFR Part
65 Uniform Standards General Provisions--Subpart H
A. Summary
B. Rationale
VII. Impacts of the Proposed Rule
A. What are the cost increases associated with requirements
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart I?
B. What are the cost increases associated with requirements
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J?
[[Page 17900]]
C. What are the cost increases associated with requirements
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
D. What are the cost impacts associated with the proposed
reporting requirements for the Uniform Standards?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. The proposed rules would establish a series of
national uniform emission standards for storage vessels and transfer
operations, equipment leaks and control devices.
We expect, in future rulemaking actions, to propose that new source
performance standards (NSPS) and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for other source categories will also
reference and require compliance with Uniform Standards, as
appropriate, provided that the referencing subpart rulemakings
demonstrate that the Uniform Standards meet the statutory stringency
requirements that would apply to the referencing subpart source
category, such as Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d), maximum
achievable control technology (MACT), section 112(f), residual risk
ample margin of safety (AMOS) and section 111(b), best systems of
emission reduction (BSER). Examples of categories and entities
potentially affected by the proposed Uniform Standards for Storage
Vessels and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control Devices
include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS \a\ code regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing......... 325 Manufacturing
industries,
particularly
petrochemical,
chemical, polymers,
plastics and specialty
chemicals
manufacturing.
Refining....................... 324 Petroleum refineries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a
guide for readers regarding entities the EPA anticipates are likely to
be potentially affected by this action through future, separate
rulemaking actions.
The table includes source categories currently subject to NESHAP
under subparts in 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 and NSPS under
subparts in 40 CFR part 60. The entities listed in the above table are
not affected by this action unless and until the EPA proposes in a
separate notice to apply a Uniform Standard to their source categories.
As proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J and M would apply to
owners or operators expressly referenced to part 65 from future
rulemakings that may result in new subparts or revisions to current
subparts of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63. The list of categories and
entities potentially affected by this proposed action in the future is
provided solely to inform owners and operators of facilities in those
categories of the potential for future rulemaking and to solicit
comments from these entities at this time. If, in future rulemakings,
the EPA were to propose to apply these Uniform Standards to a
particular source category, there would be another opportunity to
comment on the application to a specific industry. Because the EPA
believes that establishing Uniform Standards for types of emission
points found in a variety of industries will be efficient for
facilities, state, local and tribal governments and the public, we seek
broad input at this time. In the future, you would determine whether
your facility, company, business or organization would be regulated by
a proposed action by examining the applicability criteria in the
referencing subpart. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the
air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional
representative, as listed in the referencing subpart.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. EPA Mailroom (C404-02), Attention: Mr. Roberto
Morales, Document Control Officer, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868;
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as
appropriate).
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the appropriate person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Docket
The docket numbers for the proposed action regarding the Uniform
Standards are as follows:
Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer
Operations (40 CFR part 65, subpart I) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0871.
Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks (40 CFR part 65,
subpart J) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.
Uniform Standards for Control Devices (40 CFR part 65,
subpart M) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.
Uniform Standards General Provisions or general comments
on the Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65,
[[Page 17901]]
subpart H) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870.
To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number(s) assigned to this action in the subject line on the first
page of your response.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
D. Public Hearing
If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the
EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Janet Eck at (919) 541-
7946 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing, to
determine if a hearing will be held or to determine the hearing
location. If no one contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing concerning this proposed rule by April 10, 2012, a hearing will
not be held.
II. Background Information for These Proposed Rules
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory background for the
proposed Uniform Standards?
Consistent with the authority under CAA section 301(a)(1) and CAA
sections 111 and 112, we are proposing to establish the Uniform
Standards as a set of foundational requirements that may be considered
and adopted by future rulemakings under CAA sections 111 and 112.
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator ``to
prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions
under [the CAA].'' The proposed Uniform Standards, if finalized, would
provide a set of common control requirement subparts describing
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that
would, if appropriate, be referenced in future CAA 111 and 112
rulemakings. Future rulemakings would include CAA section 112(d)
standards, based on MACT determinations and generally available control
technology or management practice (GACT) determinations (for area
sources), as well as CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews of existing
standards and CAA section 112(f) revisions, which take into account the
risk to public health remaining after application of the MACT-based
standards. The proposed Uniform Standards could also be referenced
during CAA section 111(b) rulemakings to establish NSPS for source
categories, and as we periodically review and revise these standards,
to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. CAA section
111(b) standards require a level of control that historically has been
referred to as ``Best Demonstrated Technology.'' In order to better
reflect that CAA section 111 was amended in 1990 to clarify that ``best
systems'' may or may not be ``technology,'' the EPA is now using the
term ``best system of emission reduction'' or BSER.
As foundational requirements, the Uniform Standards would become
applicable to a particular source category only if a subsequent
rulemaking for that source category references the Uniform Standards.
We have previously promulgated similar standards, such as the 40 CFR
parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions (59 FR 12430, March 16, 1994)
and the Consolidated Federal Air Rules (CAR) (65 FR 78267, December 14,
2000), which only become applicable to a source category when
referenced by another rulemaking. In this preamble, we refer to
subparts that would reference the Uniform Standards as ``referencing
subparts.'' The authority for the referencing standards would be
provided under the referencing subpart. The rationale for each
determination that the Uniform Standards in proposed 40 CFR part 65,
subparts H, I, J or M are equivalent to MACT, GACT, AMOS or BSER and
comply with all other applicable statutory requirements would be
presented in the rulemaking for the individual source category with an
opportunity for public comment at that time.
The proposed Uniform Standards are also responsive to Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, which directs
each federal agency to ``periodically review its existing significant
regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the
regulatory objectives.'' The proposed Uniform Standards reflect the
EPA's regulatory experience from previous NESHAP and NSPS rulemakings
involving similar kinds of sources and emission points. They
incorporate our review of the most current technology and emission
reduction practices, as detailed in sections III through V of the
preamble, and provide updated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that may be referenced by future CAA 111 and 112
rulemakings.
The proposed Uniform Standards for Storage Tanks and Transfer
Operations, Equipment Leaks and Control Devices would be codified under
40 CFR part 65 as subparts I, J and M. The General Provisions for the
Uniform Standards and Uniform Standards for Heat Exchange Systems were
previously proposed in a separate notice signed by the EPA
Administrator on November 30, 2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012) and
would be codified under 40 CFR part 65 as subparts H and L,
respectively. We are proposing supplemental requirements for the
General Provisions (subpart H) to include new provisions applicable to
all Uniform Standards, as well as new provisions applicable to
individual Uniform Standards in subparts I, J and M. As discussed in
section VI.A of this preamble, we are maintaining the previously
proposed five sections of subpart H and adding eleven new sections. Of
the five previously proposed sections, we are proposing to make
substantive changes to three sections. The EPA will consider all
comments pertaining to the Uniform Standards General Provisions
(subpart H) that were submitted in response to the previous proposal
(77 FR 960, January 6, 2012), and will address those comments as we
address the comments on the supplemental provisions proposed in this
action.
B. What is the history and background of the proposed Uniform
Standards?
In a number of cases, the EPA has established CAA standards for
different source categories that regulate the same kinds of emission
points. Standards for a given type of emission point may require
application of controls with similar control efficiencies and include
similar design, component or operating standards, even though these
emission points may be located at different types of sources or
facilities. To avoid duplicative or disjointed requirements, and to
promote consistency among technical requirements for similar emission
points in different source categories, the EPA has established several
common control requirement subparts describing testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for certain emission points
[[Page 17902]]
and emission controls that can be referenced from multiple source
categories. For instance, we promulgated standard requirements for
selected emission points (i.e., containers, surface impoundments, oil-
water separators and organic-water separators, tanks, and individual
drain systems) in individual subparts under the NESHAP for Off-Site
Waste and Recovery Operations (61 FR 34158, July 1, 1996), and we
promulgated subparts for selected emission points (i.e., closed vent
systems, control devices, recovery devices and routing to a fuel gas
system or a process; equipment leaks; and storage vessels) as part of
the Generic MACT program. The Generic MACT standards, which were
promulgated under 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW, were
referenced in NESHAP requirements for individual source categories.
Consolidation of compliance requirements under these subparts
allows for ease of reference, administrative convenience and
consistency in the technical requirements of the air emission control
requirements applied to similar emission points under different source
category regulations. The 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU and WW
are emission point- and emissions control-specific. They specify
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, but generally do
not specify emissions reduction performance requirements or
applicability thresholds. Instead, the referencing subpart specifies
the emissions reduction performance requirements and applicability
thresholds.
By establishing these emission point- and emissions control-
specific subparts, other source category-specific regulations were able
to reference a common set of design, operating, testing, inspection,
monitoring, repair, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for air
emissions controls. This reduced the potential for duplicative or
conflicting technical requirements, and promoted consistency of the air
emission requirements applied to similar emission points, while
allowing specific emission standards to be set within the context of
the source category-specific regulations. Additionally, creating
emission point-specific and emissions control-specific subparts ensured
that all regulations that cross-referenced these subparts could be
amended in a consistent and timely manner, through one regulatory
action.
We intend to establish, through the proposed Uniform Standards, a
workable process for consolidation and a more efficient approach to
rulemaking. The Uniform Standards have, in general, been modeled after
the emission-point and emissions control-specific subparts of the
Generic MACT. We are proposing the Uniform Standards in lieu of
revising the Generic MACT because it is our intention to provide a set
of common compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that could be applied to emission points referenced from
CAA 111 and 112 (NSPS and NESHAP, respectively) rulemakings. The
Uniform Standards are designed to apply to chemical and refining
facilities regulated under the authority of sections 111 and 112 of the
CAA and who may currently be subject to regulation under 40 CFR parts
60, 61 and 63. The Generic MACT is currently referenced by NESHAP under
the provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and section 112 of the CAA; revising
the current Generic MACT to be referenced by sources regulated under
NSPS could create confusion regarding regulatory authority. In
addition, the Generic MACT currently affects a large number of source
categories and referencing subparts; therefore, a large revision of the
Generic MACT could potentially be more confusing for regulated sources.
Thus, we are proposing to establish the Uniform Standards under 40 CFR
part 65 and anticipate, through future notice-and-comment rulemaking,
to cross-reference subparts I, J and M from source category emission
standards within at least two different parts of title 40 of the CFR--
parts 60 and 63, which establish NSPS and NESHAP standards,
respectively. The process of revising individual referencing subparts
to reference the Uniform Standards or develop new subparts that
reference the Uniform Standards is a clear-cut process that allows for
review of the needs of specific source categories.
C. What is the relationship between the Uniform Standards and the
referencing subparts?
This action may affect other source categories with similar
emission points if the EPA takes action in the future to propose to
apply the Uniform Standards to one or more other source categories for
storage vessels and transfer operations, equipment leaks or process
vents. However, the EPA will determine applicability of these proposed
Uniform Standards for another source category through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. In such a rulemaking, we will explain that all or a
portion of 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J or M are consistent with
the CAA requirements at issue for the specific authority in the
rulemaking. For example, in the context of an NSPS rulemaking, we could
determine that subpart J is BSER for the source category at issue or,
alternatively, we could determine that different emission standards
should apply, but that recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements
of subpart J are appropriate.
We expect to see similar benefits for these Uniform Standards as we
have seen for previous emission point- and emissions control-specific
subparts, as described above, including the ability to reference a
common set of standards for the same type of emission point located at
sources within different source categories. This approach will maximize
consistency between source categories for each type of emission point.
As with the common control requirement subparts previously
promulgated, the proposed Uniform Standards would include technical
requirements and would not, in most cases, specify source category-
specific applicability thresholds or emissions reduction performance
requirements, because these requirements are more properly established
in source category-specific rules.
However, we are proposing applicability thresholds, compliance
requirements and monitoring frequencies that would apply if the
referencing subpart does not specify these parameters. In the
rulemaking actions that revise or propose standards to cross-reference
40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M, we would address whether the
referencing subpart should cross-reference subparts I, J and M in their
entirety or cross-reference only a subset of subparts I, J and M.
Moreover, we would determine whether the referencing (source category-
specific) subpart should include more or less stringent requirements
than subparts I, J and M.
As we revise or promulgate source category-specific standards that
have emission points addressed by a uniform standard for storage
vessels, transfer operations, equipment leaks and/or control devices,
we would propose whether and to what extent we would reference the
Uniform Standards in the proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M.
In making that decision, we would consider the applicable CAA
requirements, analyses of the individual source category and the
similarity of emission characteristics and applicable controls. We
would consider factors such as: (1) The volume and concentration of
emissions; (2) the type of emissions; (3) the similarity of emission
points; (4) the cost and
[[Page 17903]]
effectiveness of controls for one source category relative to the cost
and effectiveness of controls for the other source category; (5)
whether a source has unusual characteristics that might require
different analytical methods; and (6) whether any of the sources have
existing emission controls that are dissimilar and more stringent than
controls required for similar sources outside the source category.
These factors would be considered on a source category-specific basis
to ensure that sources are appropriately similar, and that emissions
control technologies and reductions demonstrated outside of a source
category are achievable for new and existing sources in an applicable
source category.
In future rulemakings, the referencing subpart would establish the
source category-specific requirements, including the regulated
materials, appropriate applicability thresholds or tiers, emissions
limit requirements (including the format and units of measure) and
other source category-specific requirements. Additionally, the
referencing subpart would provide rationale for the use of surrogates,
if the use of surrogates is appropriate for the source category; for
example, the referencing subpart could establish limits on particulate
matter (PM) to achieve control of non-volatile metallic hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), yet refer to the Uniform Standards for monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For any provisions of the
Uniform Standards not cross-referenced by a source category-specific
subpart, the requirement would be expressly addressed in the source
category-specific (referencing) subpart. A portion of 40 CFR part 65,
subparts I, J and/or M could be cross-referenced and exceptions could
be made within the referencing subpart, as necessary, to ensure that
the proposed requirements are appropriate to the source category in
light of the applicable CAA requirements. For example, the referencing
subpart could specify a monitoring frequency other than that contained
in the Uniform Standards if we determine that a different monitoring
frequency is appropriate for the regulated emission point in that
source category. A referencing subpart with applicability thresholds,
for instance, may only direct to a portion of the Uniform Standards or
not direct to the Uniform Standards at all for certain thresholds.
Because the proposed Uniform Standards could be referenced in this
manner, we believe that the requirements in subparts I, J and M would
not inhibit the flexibility to address source category-specific needs.
The rationale for each determination that the provisions of 40 CFR
part 65, subparts H, I, J or M should be cross-referenced for an
individual referencing subpart in light of the applicable CAA
requirements, would be addressed in the rulemaking for the individual
subpart at the time of proposal, and we would provide an opportunity
for public comment at that time. A description of the analyses
performed as part of that review would be presented in the rulemaking
for the individual subpart and an opportunity for comment would be
provided. We would also assess the costs, emission reduction, economic
and other impacts as they relate to the specific source category at
issue at that time.
In light of these considerations, we have determined that the
proposed Uniform Standards would promote the EPA's ability to simplify,
clarify and improve implementation of the rules with which source
owners or operators must comply, consistent with the objectives of
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and
resulting in a cost and burden reduction for both the public and
private sector.
D. What are the purpose and benefits of the proposed Uniform Standards?
This action proposes the Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and
Transfer Operations (40 CFR part 65, subpart I), Equipment Leaks (40
CFR part 65, subpart J) and Control Devices (40 CFR part 65, subpart
M), and revisions to the General Provisions for the Uniform Standards
(40 CFR part 65, subpart H).
This action is based on the EPA's review of the current
requirements for equipment leaks, storage tanks and transfer operations
and control devices used to control process vents in light of over 20
years of regulatory implementation experience. The benefits of the
proposed Uniform Standards include:
Providing one-stop requirements for equipment leaks,
storage tanks and control devices for the chemical manufacturing and
refining industries;
Providing strengthened control and monitoring requirements
based on cost-effective advances in technology that could be considered
for adoption in future rulemakings;
Enhancing compliance and enforcement to ensure that the
standards achieve the intended emissions reductions required for MACT,
GACT or BSER; and
Reduction of unnecessary and unproductive regulatory
burden.
These benefits also support the objectives of Executive Order
13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Examples of the
changes we are proposing that accomplish each of these objectives are
below.
The proposed Uniform Standards provide the benefit of one-stop
compliance, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
specific emission points that would be referenced in future rulemakings
for the chemical manufacturing and refining industries. The EPA desires
to facilitate implementation and compliance by making requirements
easier to understand, incorporating streamlined compliance approaches
and applying these approaches across industry sectors. Currently, the
chemical manufacturing and refining industries may be subject to
multiple NSPS and NESHAP, including the Generic MACT (40 CFR part 63,
subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW); the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing NESHAP (68 FR 63851, November 10, 2003) (MON); the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994) (HON), the
Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) NESHAP (69 FR 5038, February 3,
2004); the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP (60 FR 43260, August 18, 1995);
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) rules
(Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels
(52 FR 11429, April 8, 1987); Standards of Performance for Equipment
Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
(48 FR 48335, October 18, 1983); and SOCMI Reactor Processes (58 FR
45962, August 31, 1993)). Several of these rules cover similar emission
points, such as storage tanks, transfer operations, equipment leaks or
process vents that route to a control device. As a result, facilities
subject to two or more of these rules may have overlapping or confusing
compliance requirements for the same emission point. Additionally,
facilities may have burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for multiple subparts to which they are subject. The proposed Uniform
Standards revise and streamline the compliance approach for future
rulemakings by applying a set of control and compliance methods that
may be referenced from multiple subparts. In particular, the proposed
Uniform Standards are structured so that facilities regulated under
NSPS and NESHAP could reference the same cost-effective monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for storage tanks,
[[Page 17904]]
transfer racks, equipment leaks and process vents that route to a
control device, provided the Uniform Standards are determined to be
appropriate for the NSPS and NESHAP source categories (see section II.C
of this preamble). By providing a consistent set of compliance,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the proposed
standards would reduce the burden to the chemical manufacturing and
refining industries. Additionally, applying these common emission
point-specific requirements provides the benefit of easing the
enforcement burden for government agencies.
The proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M also provide the
groundwork for future rulemakings as a set of strengthened control and
monitoring requirements that may be considered for use in future
referencing subparts to meet MACT, GACT, AMOS or BSER. The proposed
standards are based on a consolidation of existing requirements, but
have been augmented where appropriate based on our survey of available
technology and a review of existing regulations for each emission
point. For example, under the proposed Uniform Standards for Storage
Vessels and Transfer Operations, we are proposing to specify situations
when landing a floating roof is allowable and the amount of time that a
storage vessel with a landed floating roof may be left standing idle.
These changes reduce the amount of time during which volatile regulated
materials are exposed to the atmosphere and may be released. To improve
detection of leaks on fixed roof storage tanks and thereby minimize
emissions, we are also proposing to require monitoring for leaks from
closure devices, pressure/vacuum vents and other potential leak
interfaces on fixed roof storage vessels using Method 21 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7, or optical gas imaging instead of visual inspections
for defects. We are also proposing to include different delay of repair
provisions in the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks which
specify that if a valve or connector cannot be repaired within 15 days,
``low leak technology'' must be used to repair the equipment when it is
technically feasible to do so. ``Low leak technology'' that is
available and cost effective includes replacing the valve packing,
flange gaskets or the entire valve or connector. These requirements
provide additional emissions reductions and could be referenced by
future rulemakings as a means to meet applicable CAA requirements. The
proposed Uniform Standards for Control Devices include strengthened
provisions that require owners and operators of closed vent systems to
provide monitoring for each bypass for pressure relief devices (PRD),
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-ended valves
or lines. We are proposing that this equipment is subject to the bypass
line requirements to have a flow monitor or a car seal on each bypass
line that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere, thereby
minimizing emissions from these points. The proposed requirements under
40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M have been designed to reflect
advanced practices and control methods and provide robust air emissions
control. This allows us to consider these proposed standards as a basis
for review in future rulemakings for source categories with similar
emission points. Further discussion of these provisions and other
strengthened requirements under the Uniform Standards are included in
the discussions for each individual subpart in sections III, IV and V
of this preamble.
The proposed Uniform Standards also provide the benefits of
improved compliance and enforceability. We are proposing to facilitate
implementation and compliance by clarifying current requirements that
were vague or confusing. For example, current equipment leak rules
require facilities to equip open-ended valves or lines with a cap,
blind flange, plug or second valve to prevent emissions. We have
retained that requirement in the proposed Uniform Standards for
Equipment Leaks, but we have added a requirement to check that the cap,
blind flange, plug or second valve is installed or closed properly
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 at least once a year to
ensure compliance with the standard. The EPA is also proposing to
clarify requirements in the Uniform Standards that were confusing
during implementation of previous rules, such as the monitoring
requirements for small boilers and process heaters that are not part of
a fuel gas system (see discussion in section V.B.3 of this preamble).
As another example, the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks
include all the types of equipment for which sensory monitoring is
required in one section, which makes clear that the sensory monitoring
requirements for all applicable types of equipment are identical. In
other current standards, these requirements are spread throughout the
rule, and slight differences in wording make it difficult to tell if
the requirements are supposed to be the same. These clarifications are
intended to improve compliance and enforceability as the Uniform
Standards are considered during CAA 111 and 112 rulemakings and
incorporated into future referencing subparts. Further clarifications
are discussed in the individual subparts in sections III, IV and V of
this preamble.
The proposed Uniform Standards also provide benefits as they reduce
unproductive burden within the chemical and refining sectors. For
example, the proposed Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks include
provisions to use optical imaging to monitor for leaks (where
appropriate and allowed by the referencing subpart) instead of
instrument monitoring. Because the optical gas imaging device can
monitor many more pieces of equipment than conducting instrument
monitoring in the same period of time, these provisions are expected to
reduce the cost of labor required to meet the proposed Uniform
Standards for Equipment Leaks. In particular, we have focused on
simplifying recordkeeping and reporting requirements throughout each
proposed subpart. For example, under the proposed General Provisions,
we have specified that certain reports that are required to be
submitted will be done so electronically, as discussed in sections II.F
and VI.B.7 of this preamble. We are also proposing a revised record
retention policy that allows that records can be maintained in
electronic format and accessible within 2 hours of a request for the 5-
year record retention period. We have not included different retention
periods for onsite and offsite records because the ability to maintain
electronic records removes the need for specifying the storage
location. An electronic record can be stored either onsite or offsite,
but still be quickly accessible from onsite.
Furthermore, we have developed the proposed Uniform Standards in
keeping with the objectives of Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, issued January 18, 2011. Consistent
with Executive Order 13563, the proposed standards are based on a
thorough review of current regulations and reduce regulatory burden by
consolidating and simplifying requirements, including eliminating
duplicative requirements. These proposed standards further facilitate
implementation and compliance by clarifying and improving current
requirements, using new and streamlined compliance approaches and
applying these approaches broadly. The proposed Uniform Standards also
implement cost-effective control strategies without compromising
environmental protection, and have
[[Page 17905]]
taken into consideration the latest control techniques. Finally, these
standards provide a flexible, streamlined process for future
rulemakings that will reduce burden and increase efficiency for both
government regulators and industry.
E. How were the proposed Uniform Standards developed?
In keeping with previous emission point-specific and emissions
control-specific subparts, we have structured the proposed Uniform
Standards for 40 CFR part 65, subparts H, I, J and M to provide a
common set of monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. We intend the proposed Uniform Standards to provide
common standards for environmental control that may be referenced from
multiple regulations and that may be useful for a broad range of source
categories. It is our view that the Uniform Standards will decrease
inconsistencies between rulemakings for similar types of industries and
reduce burden for both industry and government regulators.
In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13563,
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, we reviewed the current
Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 63, subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW;
the MON (68 FR 63888, November 10, 2003); the HON (59 FR 19402, April
22, 1994); and other recent rules in the development of the proposed
Uniform Standards. The Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 63,
subparts SS, TT, UU, and WW were chosen as a starting point for the
Uniform Standards because they were previously developed for the
purpose of providing consistent requirements for storage vessels and
transfer operations, equipment leaks and control devices used to
control process vents that could be referenced by multiple NESHAP
subparts, and they already incorporate technical improvements based on
the EPA's experience with implementation of other subparts, such as the
National Emission Standards for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR part 60,
subpart CC) and the HON. We augment these provisions in the proposed
Uniform Standards by adding requirements from recent rulemakings,
clarifying unclear requirements and incorporating alternative
technologies and compliance approaches. As part of this process, we
have investigated current practices and advances in technology and
examined the cost effectiveness of applying certain technologies for
control. Additionally, we reviewed the applicability determination
index database, test reports, title V permit requirements, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance experience and recent EPA
decisions to identify cost-effective technological, monitoring and
compliance approaches that would reduce burden across source
categories. In this proposal, we are referring to the existing flare
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for flare compliance and
are not proposing new flare requirements. We are continuing to gather
data, review flare research papers and test reports, and investigate
operating conditions that may influence the performance of a flare.
Based on this information, we may in the future propose to add new
flare requirements to the Uniform Standards.
As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we expect that
applying a common set of monitoring, testing and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to multiple source categories would be feasible
because several source categories within the chemical and refining
industries use similar process operations and have similar emission
points. Specifically, various industries require the regulation of air
emissions from storage vessel and transfer operations, equipment leaks
and control devices. Although these industries may have variations in
their process operations and the regulated materials used, these
emission sources are generally amenable to similar methods for control
and demonstration of compliance.
Our review of current regulations for storage vessel and transfer
operations, equipment leaks and process vents found that these emission
points often have similar requirements for the demonstration of
compliance. In general, the mechanisms for release of emissions to the
atmosphere from these emission points or emissions controls are
similar, regardless of the specific regulated materials involved. With
the knowledge of these similarities, we expect that compliance methods
that have been determined to be cost effective for control of a
specific amount of a given regulated material at one of the proposed
emission points would generally be cost effective for the same
regulated material at similar emission points, regardless of the source
category. Specifically, the compliance methods proposed with the
Uniform Standards have been developed with the consideration that they
may be applied to emission points in a broad range of source
categories. Although we considered how the proposed requirements would
apply to petroleum refineries and chemical plants, we have structured
the Uniform Standards to provide flexible compliance methods that could
be useful for multiple industries. In determining the best and most
cost-effective compliance methods, monitoring, and recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for the proposed standards, we examined and drew
guidance from current rules from many different source categories that
contain storage vessel, transfer operations, equipment leaks, process
vents, and a variety of control devices. These guiding rules are
discussed further in sections III, IV and V of this preamble. While the
current rules provide requirements for individual source categories
with slight variations for the specific regulated materials and process
methods used in the regulated industry, we propose that the Uniform
Standards, which would consolidate consistent, cost-effective
requirements from a wide range of compliance methods for the same
emission points, could be easily and effectively applied to additional
industries.
Because the proposed Uniform Standards are intended to supply
general requirements for source category-specific subparts, we expect
that as current NSPS and NESHAP are periodically reviewed for
technology advancements, they may refer to the Uniform Standards for
compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting provisions. Review
of both NSPS and NESHAP under the CAA authorizes us to consider the
cost impacts of control. Therefore, in reviewing the current
requirements for these emission points across source categories, we
examined the cost effectiveness of the compliance methods. For example,
we have considered the cost effectiveness of control methods for
equipment leaks on a volatile organic compound (VOC) basis. The
majority of the emissions from equipment leaks are the result of gases
or vapors escaping through leaks, either because the process fluid
itself is a gas or vapor or because the process fluid is a liquid that
volatilizes easily. Therefore, VOC are a class of compounds that are
representative of these types of emissions. The proposed Uniform
Standards, as a whole, reflect our determination of the best and most
cost-effective compliance and control options for the regulated
materials generally expected at the proposed emission points.
To account for the differences between individual source
categories, the proposed standards generally provide limited technical
requirements for monitoring, testing, recordkeeping and reporting for
the identified emission points. Overall, we have determined that the
regulated materials, applicability requirements, emission
[[Page 17906]]
limits or control levels are best determined on a source category
basis, as discussed in section II.C in this preamble, to reflect the
specific needs of the source category. However, we are proposing
applicability thresholds for the Uniform Standards for Storage Tanks
(including size and vapor pressure) and control levels for the Uniform
Standards for Equipment Leaks (including thresholds at which leaking
equipment must be repaired, or ``leak definitions''). These thresholds
are provided for consideration in future referencing subpart
rulemakings, and would only apply if the referencing subpart does not
specify an applicability threshold and/or control level. The
referencing subpart may choose to refer to these thresholds in the
Uniform Standards or may establish more appropriate thresholds for a
specific source-category (overriding the Uniform Standards), as
discussed in section II.C.
F. What are the electronic data submittal requirements?
Electronic reporting is becoming an increasingly common element of
modern life (as evidenced by electronic banking and income tax filing),
and the EPA is beginning to require electronic submittal of certain
environmental data. Electronic reporting is already common in
environmental data collection and many media offices at the EPA are
reducing reporting burden for the regulated community by embracing
electronic reporting systems as an alternative to paper-based
reporting.
One of the major benefits of reporting electronically is
standardization, to the extent possible, of the data reporting formats,
which provides more certainty to users of the data required in specific
reports. For example, electronic reporting software allows for more
efficient data transmittal and the software's validation mechanism
helps industry users submit fewer incomplete reports. This alone saves
industry and regulatory agencies report processing resources and
reduces transaction times. Standardization also allows for development
of efficient methods to compile and store much of the documentation
required to be reported under this rule.
We are proposing that certain reports required to be submitted
through the Uniform Standards would be submitted electronically. These
reports would include all performance test reports, continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) performance evaluation reports, the 40 CFR
part 65, subparts I and J portions of the Notification of Compliance
Status, and semiannual periodic reports specified in 40 CFR part 65,
subparts H, I, J and M. All other reports would be submitted in hard
copy or other method mutually agreed to between the source and the
delegated authority. We have reasoned that reporting elements that are
descriptive and contain a high level of detail would not be easily
incorporated into the electronic reporting system at this time. For a
discussion of each of these various types of reports, see sections III,
IV, V and VI of this preamble.
The availability of electronic reporting for sources subject to the
Uniform Standards will provide efficiency, improved services, better
accessibility of information and more transparency and accountability.
Additionally, submittal of these required reports electronically
provides significant benefits for regulatory agencies, industry and the
public. The compliance data electronic reporting system is being
developed such that once a facility's initial data entry into the
system is established and a report is generated, subsequent data
submittal would only consist of electronic updates to existing
information in the system. Such a system would effectively reduce the
burden associated with submittal of data and reports by reducing the
time, costs and effort required to submit and update hard copies of
documentation. State, local and tribal air pollution control agencies
could also benefit from more streamlined and accurate electronic data
submitted to them. Electronic reporting would allow for an electronic
review process rather than a manual data assessment, making review and
evaluation of the source-provided data and calculations easier and more
efficient. Electronic reporting would also benefit the public by
generating a more transparent review process and increasing the ease
and efficiency of data accessibility. Furthermore, electronic reporting
would reduce the burden on the regulated community by reducing the
effort involved in data collection and reporting activities. With the
complete information provided in electronic reports, we anticipate
there will be a need for fewer and less substantial data collection
requests in conjunction with prospective required residual risk
assessments or technology reviews. We anticipate that using electronic
reporting for the required reports will result in an overall reduction
in reporting costs; specifically, we estimated potential savings in
reporting costs for an existing chemical plant to be approximately
$6,780 (or a 42-percent cost reduction in hard copy reporting required
by existing rules). For further discussion of the economic and cost
impacts of electronic reporting, see section VII.D of this preamble.
Another benefit of the proposed electronic data submittal is that
these data will greatly improve the overall quality of existing and new
emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data for
establishing emissions factors and by ensuring that the factors are
more representative of current industry operational procedures. A
common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that emission
factors are outdated or not representative of a particular source
category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from most
performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that the updated
emission factors become available to represent the most current range
of operational practices.
We are proposing that data entry of these electronic reports would
be through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(www.epa.gov/cdx). Data transmitted electronically through CEDRI will
be stored in CDX as an official copy of record. Once you have accessed
CEDRI, you will select the applicable subpart for the report that you
are submitting. You will then select the report type being transmitted,
enter the data into the form and click on the submit button. In some
cases, such as with submittal of a Notification of Compliance Status
Report, you will select the report type, enter basic facility
information and then upload the report in a specified file format.
In addition, we believe that there will be utility in allowing
other reporting forms to be developed and used in cases where the other
reporting forms can provide an alternate electronic file consistent
with the EPA's form output format. This approach has been used
successfully to provide alternatives for other electronic forms (e.g.,
income tax transmittal). The proposal to submit performance test data
electronically to the EPA would apply only to those performance tests
conducted using test methods that will be supported by the electronic
reporting tool (ERT) which can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. The ERT contains a specific electronic data entry
form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of
the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at
the ERT Web site listed above. A generic form is also available for
test methods that are not specifically supported by ERT and you may
submit performance tests with non-
[[Page 17907]]
listed test methods using the generic form.
In CEDRI, the user must then upload the ERT file. CEDRI transmits a
copy of the ERT project data file directly to WebFIRE, where the data
are made available. Where performance test reports are transmitted,
WebFIRE notifies the appropriate state, local or tribal agency contact
that an ERT project data file was received from the source.
In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with these reports
would save industry, state, local, tribal agencies and the EPA
significant time, money and effort while also improving the quality of
emission inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations.
III. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National
Uniform Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations--Subpart I
A. Summary
We are proposing new Uniform Standards for control of emissions
from storage vessels and transfer operations. These Uniform Standards
would apply to a storage vessel or transfer operation only if that
storage vessel or transfer operation is subject to a regulation that
references such standards in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart I for
control of air emissions from these sources. In section III of this
preamble, the term ``we'' refers to the EPA and the term ``you'' refers
to owners and operators of sources affected by the proposed standards.
Additionally, ``subpart I'' refers to proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart
I. Section III.B provides our rationale for the proposed requirements.
1. What parts of my plant are affected by the proposed rule?
Proposed subpart I would apply to atmospheric storage vessels,
pressurized vessels and transfer operations for which another subpart
references such standards in this subpart for air emission control.
Different vessel size and stored material maximum true vapor pressure
(MTVP) thresholds are specified for the different control requirements
for storage vessels. Different throughputs and transferred material
MTVP thresholds are specified for the different control requirements
for transfer operations. We are not proposing to specify a compliance
timeline in this subpart, since the compliance period would depend upon
the proposal and final rule effective dates of the referencing subpart;
thus, the compliance timeline for implementing these standards, as
specified in the referencing subpart, would apply for that source
category.
As in current storage vessel rules, the proposed rule for storage
vessels is based on design requirements, inspection requirements and
emission standards. Current rules specify the size and vapor pressure
thresholds that define which storage vessels must comply with the
requirements. Similar thresholds are specified in proposed subpart I.
As in current transfer operations rules, the proposed Uniform Standards
for transfer operations are based on loading requirements, inspection
requirements and emission standards. Current rules specify the size and
vapor pressure thresholds that define which transfer operations must
comply with the requirements. Similar thresholds are specified in
proposed subpart I.
2. What are the proposed general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Your storage vessels and transfer operations would be subject to
some or all of the requirements of subpart I when another subpart
references the use of such requirements in subpart I for air emission
control. In addition, you would be required to meet the general
provisions applicable to 40 CFR part 65 (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR part
65) and the general provisions applicable to the referencing subpart
(i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63).
Atmospheric storage vessels. Under proposed subpart I, you would be
required to control emissions from each atmospheric storage vessel that
contains regulated material (and is part of a regulated source subject
to a referencing subpart). The type of control would depend on the size
of the storage vessel and the MTVP of the stored regulated material. We
are proposing four compliance approaches for each storage vessel that
meets the capacity and MTVP thresholds presented in Table 1 of this
preamble (and Table 1 of proposed subpart I). These approaches are: (1)
Operate and maintain either an internal floating roof (IFR) or an
external floating roof (EFR), provided the MTVP of the stored regulated
material is less than 11.1 pounds per square inch absolute (psia); (2)
operate and maintain a vapor balancing system on a fixed roof tank; (3)
vent emissions from a fixed roof tank through a closed vent system to a
control device according to the requirements in proposed 40 CFR part
65, subpart M; or (4) route emissions from a fixed roof tank to a fuel
gas system. For each storage vessel that does not meet either set of
thresholds described above, you would be required to operate and
maintain a fixed roof (or you may elect to comply with the requirements
for larger tanks that store regulated material with higher MTVP).
Inspections and repair of defects and leaks would also be required for
all storage vessels. Each of the four compliance approaches is
discussed in further detail in sections III.A.4 through 7 of this
preamble.
Table 1--Control Thresholds for Atmospheric Storage Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the storage capacity is
Comply with And the MTVP is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements for fixed roof storage <20,000 gal, or........... Any level.
vessels in Sec. 65.310. <40,000 gal, or........... <1.9 psia.
>=40,000 gal.............. <0.75 psia.
Any one of four compliance approaches >=20,000 gal, or.......... >=1.9 psia.
specified in Sec. Sec. 65.315, >=40,000 gal.............. >=0.75 psia.
65.320, 65.325 or 65.330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer operations. If you own or operate a transfer rack that
loads regulated material into transport vehicles (i.e., cargo tanks or
tank cars) or containers, you would have to control emissions from the
transfer operations as specified in proposed subpart I. The specific
control requirements would differ depending on the amount of regulated
material transferred and the MTVP of the stored material. Details are
discussed in sections III.A.9 and 10 of this preamble. The proposed
rule does not specify requirements for loading regulated material into
barges, which are currently regulated by the Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y) and would remain so
covered.
[[Page 17908]]
3. What are the proposed requirements for fixed roof atmospheric
storage vessels that are small or store material that has a low vapor
pressure?
For fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels that are smaller than
20,000 gallons, smaller than 40,000 gallons and store material with a
MTVP less than 1.9 psia or greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons and
store material with a MTVP less than 0.75 psia, you would have to meet
specified equipment, operating, inspection and repair requirements. The
proposed equipment requirements are to: (1) Install the fixed roof in a
manner that would avoid creating open spaces between roof section
joints or between the interface of the roof edge and the tank wall; and
(2) equip each opening in the fixed roof with a closure device that,
when secured in the closed position, allows no open spaces in the
closure device or between the perimeter of the opening and the closure
device. You would be required to operate the fixed roof with each
closure device secured in the closed position except during those
periods when access is needed. A conservation vent or similar device
would be allowed to vent to the atmosphere when diurnal temperature
changes or filling of the storage vessel cause pressure in the storage
vessel to exceed the design range for the storage vessel (i.e., normal
breathing and working emissions).
To demonstrate compliance with the equipment and operating
requirements, you would be required to conduct initial and periodic
monitoring of the fixed roof and its closure devices for leaks. For
parts of the fixed roof that you determine are unsafe to monitor, you
would have to develop a written plan in which you document why those
parts are unsafe to monitor and that specifies a schedule for
monitoring when it is safe to do so.
We are proposing two monitoring options. One option would be to use
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. This monitoring would be
required annually, and you would detect a leak each time you obtain an
instrument reading greater than 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv).
The second option would be to use optical gas imaging. This monitoring
would be required semiannually, and the instrument would have to be
capable of detecting at least one of the compounds emitted from the
storage vessel. A leak would be detected each time the instrument
detects an image. This option also would reference a protocol for other
requirements. We are currently developing the protocol and expect to
propose it as appendix K to 40 CFR part 60. Public comment on the
content of the proposed protocol will be requested in the Federal
Register notice for the proposed protocol. In addition, we intend to
provide an opportunity to comment on the application of appendix K to
40 CFR part 60 to the optical gas imaging provisions in these Uniform
Standards. As discussed in section IV of this preamble, the protocol
would also apply to optical gas imaging for equipment leaks. See
section IV.A.5 of this preamble for a discussion of the information
that we are planning to include in the protocol. Note, however, that
the proposed bimonthly monitoring frequency for equipment leaks would
not apply to monitoring of fittings on storage vessels.
If leaks are discovered in a storage vessel during an inspection,
you have to either complete repairs or completely empty the storage
vessel within 45 days, although you would be allowed up to two
extensions of up to 30 days each. If you use an extension, you must
maintain records that document your use of the extension. These records
must indicate that alternative storage capacity was unavailable and
list the actions you took in an effort to repair or empty the tank in
the allowed period before the extension.
4. What are the proposed requirements to control atmospheric storage
vessels with a floating roof (``floating roof approach'')?
If you elect to use a floating roof to control emissions from an
atmospheric storage vessel that meets the size and MTVP thresholds for
such control, you would have to comply with the proposed equipment,
operating, inspection and repair requirements for floating roofs
specified in this rule.
The proposed rule includes rim seal equipment requirements that are
consistent with current rules. If you use an IFR, you would be required
to equip the IFR with a liquid-mounted seal, mechanical shoe seal or
two seals mounted one above the other. If you use an EFR, you would
have to equip the EFR with a liquid-mounted seal and secondary seal, or
with a mechanical shoe seal and secondary seal.
The proposed rule includes design and operation specifications for
closure devices and other fittings for each type of opening through the
deck of the floating roof. Most of these design and operational
requirements for deck fittings are consistent with requirements in
current rules. One difference is that the proposed rule explicitly
specifies requirements for slotted ladder legs that are comparable to
requirements for slotted guidepoles. Another difference is that the
proposed rule defines automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vent) to
include both devices that are activated by pressure and vacuum
differences across the floating roof and devices that are activated
when an extension leg contacts the floor of the storage vessel. The
proposed rule also includes additional control options for slotted
guidepoles that were developed for the Storage Tank Emission Reduction
Partnership Program (STERPP) (65 FR 19891, April 13, 2000).
The proposed rule would require that you equip each storage vessel
with an alarm system that signals when the floating roof: (1) Is about
to land on its legs or other support devices; or (2) is close to being
overfilled. Each time the floating roof is landed, you would be
required to estimate, record and report the amount of regulated
material emitted during the time the roof was landed. Similarly, if the
storage vessel is ever overfilled, you would be required to estimate,
record and report the amount of regulated material spilled and emitted
to the atmosphere.
The proposed rule would require that the floating roof be floating
on the liquid surface at all times except for certain instances when
the floating roof is being supported on leg supports or other support
devices (landed). We are proposing to limit both the total amount of
time and the circumstances under which the floating roof may be landed
to: (1) During the initial fill; (2) when necessary for maintenance,
inspection or to support a change to an incompatible liquid, provided
you either begin refilling the storage vessel or begin actions to
completely empty the storage vessel within 24 hours; (3) when actions
to completely empty the storage vessel begin within 24 hours after the
roof is landed in order to take the storage vessel out of service; or
(4) if the vapors are routed through a closed vent system to a control
device from the time the roof is landed until the roof is within 10
percent by volume of being refloated. Typically, once you begin
refilling the storage vessel, you would not be allowed to suspend
refilling or withdraw liquid until after the roof is refloated. The
requirement for continuous refilling until the roof is refloated would
not apply to a storage vessel that is used to store product from a
batch process if the quantity of product from one batch is insufficient
to refloat the roof, and the roof will be refloated when product from
additional batches is added to the storage vessel. However, withdrawal
of liquid from the storage vessel would still not be permitted until
after the roof is refloated.
[[Page 17909]]
The proposed rule would require that you inspect the floating roof
deck, deck fittings and rim seals. One option would be to conduct
visual inspections, measure gaps in rim seals for an EFR and measure
gaps between gaskets and the surfaces they are intended to seal for
deck fittings on both IFR and EFR. The proposed rule also specifies
that Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 may be used as an
alternative to the deck fittings gap measurement requirements for
either type of floating roof and the rim-seal gap measurements on EFR.
Another proposed alternative to the deck fittings gap measurement
requirements is optical gas imaging. Requirements for monitoring using
optical gas imaging would be the same as discussed in section III.A.3
of this preamble for monitoring of fixed roofs. Monitoring using either
optical gas imaging or Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 would
be required while the floating roof is floating on the stored liquid.
The proposed rule lists the conditions that would be considered
inspection failure (i.e., stored liquid on the floating roof; holes or
tears in the primary or secondary seal; floating roof deck, deck
fittings or rim seals that are not functioning as designed; failure to
comply with the operational requirements; and excessive gaps).
The proposed rule includes inspection frequency requirements for
both IFR and EFR. For IFR, you would have to inspect: (1) Before the
initial fill of the storage vessel; (2) at least annually (tank top
inspection only); and (3) each time the storage vessel is completely
emptied and degassed (but no later than 10 years after the previous
such inspection or no later than 5 years for IFR equipped with two rim
seals). For EFR, you would have to inspect: (1) The primary and
secondary rim seals and deck fittings within 90 days after the initial
fill of the storage vessel; (2) the secondary seal, deck fittings and
EFR at least annually; and (3) the primary seal no later than 5 years
after the previous primary seal gap inspection. Delays in IFR and EFR
inspection would be allowed if the storage vessel is out of service on
the date 5 or 10 years after the last inspection, as applicable,
provided the inspection is conducted prior to filling the storage
vessel.
If you determine that it is unsafe to perform the EFR inspections
specified in the rule, you would have to either perform the inspections
no later than 30 days after making this determination, or remove the
storage vessel from service no later than 45 days after making this
determination. You may use up to two extensions (up to 30 days each) if
the storage vessel cannot be emptied within 45 days, provided you
document this decision, explain why it was unsafe to perform the
inspection, document that alternative storage capacity is unavailable
and provide a schedule of actions taken in an effort to completely
empty the storage vessel during the extension period. Not completely
emptying the storage vessel before the end of the second extension
period would be a deviation.
In the event of an inspection failure, the proposed rule requires
repair to correct the failure. In addition, if at times when you are
not specifically conducting an inspection as required by the proposed
rule, but you notice a condition that constitutes an inspection
failure, you would be required to make the necessary repairs just as if
the condition had been noted during a scheduled inspection. If you
performed the inspection while the storage vessel was not storing
liquid, you would have to complete repairs before refilling the storage
vessel with liquid. If you performed the inspection while the storage
vessel was storing liquid, you would have to complete repairs or remove
the vessel from service within 45 days, but you would be allowed up to
two extensions (up to 30 days each), as long as you document your
decision to use the extension. The documentation would include a
description of the failure, documentation that alternative storage
capacity is unavailable and a schedule of actions taken in an effort to
either repair or completely empty the storage vessel before the end of
the applicable extension period. Not repairing or completely emptying
the storage vessel before the end of the second extension would be a
deviation.
You have the option to request the substitution of an alternate
device for any of the seals and fittings specified in the floating roof
approach, as long as the alternate device has an emission factor less
than or equal to the emission factor for the specified device and the
emission factor for the alternate device was determined under tests
that accurately simulated the conditions under which the device will
operate (e.g., wind speed, temperature, pressure and filling rates).
5. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof
atmospheric storage vessels if I use vapor balancing (``vapor balancing
approach'')?
If you elect to control emissions from a fixed roof atmospheric
storage vessel by using vapor balancing, you would have to comply with
the proposed design, operating, monitoring and repair requirements for
vapor balancing specified in this rule. You would have to operate,
maintain and inspect the fixed roof, and repair leaks as specified in
section III.A.3 of this preamble. Unlike current rules, the proposed
rule contains no requirements for offsite facilities that clean and/or
reload the transport vehicles and barges.
Under the proposed vapor balancing approach, you would have to
design and operate the vapor balancing system to route the vapors
displaced from storage vessel loading to the transport vehicle used to
fill the storage vessel. Each transport vehicle would have to have a
current certification of pressure testing conducted in accordance with
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements, and you would
have to keep records of these certifications. Barges would have to be
pressure tested annually in accordance with procedures in the proposed
rule; these procedures are consistent with requirements in the Marine
Tank Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart Y) and
the Benzene Transfer Operations NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart BB).
You would be required to maintain copies of documentation showing that
the required testing was performed. The fixed roof would have to meet
the design and operating requirements described in section III.A.3 of
this preamble.
Under the proposed operating requirements, liquid may be unloaded
only when the transport vehicle's vapor-collection equipment is
connected to the storage vessel's vapor balancing system. Also, no PRD
on the storage vessel, transport vehicle or barge may be open during
loading, and PRD on the storage vessel would not be allowed to open at
any time as a result of diurnal temperature changes (i.e., breathing
losses would not be allowed). You would have to set PRD on storage
vessels no lower than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) in order
to prevent breathing losses, unless you provide a rationale for a lower
value in your notification of compliance. In addition, you would have
to keep records of the pressure relief vent settings that prevent
breathing losses from the storage vessel. All vapor connections and
lines on the storage vessel would have to be equipped with closures
that seal upon disconnect.
Most of the proposed requirements for inspecting, monitoring and
repairing equipment in the vapor balancing system and the fixed roof
are the same as for closed vent systems as described in section III.A.6
of this preamble. The only difference is that for vapor balancing
systems you may elect to
[[Page 17910]]
comply with the alternative monitoring frequencies for batch operations
in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J if your vapor balancing system
operates less than 75 percent of the hours during the year.
6. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof
atmospheric storage vessels if I route emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device (``closed vent system approach'')?
If you elect to vent emissions from a fixed roof storage vessel
through a closed vent system to a control device, you would have to
comply with the proposed equipment, operating, inspection and repair
requirements specified in this rule for these systems.
If your storage vessel and closed vent system are not in vacuum
service, you would have to operate, maintain and inspect the fixed
roof, and repair leaks as specified in section III.A.3 of this
preamble, except that normal breathing and working emissions would not
be allowed to vent to the atmosphere. Monitoring would not be required
if the storage vessel and closed vent system are in vacuum service, but
you would be required to demonstrate that vacuum is maintained by
installing a pressure monitoring device and alarm as specified in
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J.
For the closed vent system, you would have to comply with the
bypass line requirements specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart
M, and you would be required to comply with requirements for equipment
in regulated material service in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J.
Either equipment controls (e.g., caps on open ended lines) or leak
detection and repair (LDAR) would be required, as specified in 40 CFR
65.420 through 65.427 of proposed subpart J, except that sensory
monitoring in 40 CFR 65.428 of proposed subpart J would be allowed for
connectors if your referencing subpart does not require instrument
monitoring for connectors. Note that the option in proposed subpart J
to conduct sensory monitoring for equipment in regulated material
service less than 300 hours per year (hr/yr) would not apply to
equipment in the closed vent system. The proposed leak detection
monitoring methods include either Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7, or optical gas imaging in accordance with proposed 40 CFR 65.450
(provided your referencing subpart specifies that optical gas imaging
is allowed for LDAR). Required monitoring and inspections would have to
be conducted either when an affected storage vessel is being filled or
at any other time the equipment in the closed vent system is in
regulated material service. Any other potential sources of vapor
leakage (e.g., an access hatch) that are not defined as equipment would
be subject to sensory monitoring and related repair requirements as
specified in 40 CFR 65.428 and 65.430 of proposed subpart J.
For a non-flare control device, you would be required to comply
with the provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M for the
applicable control device and reduce regulated organic material
emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an outlet
concentration of regulated material less than 20 ppmv. To demonstrate
initial compliance with this emission limit, proposed subpart I would
allow you to conduct a design evaluation as an alternative to the
performance test (note that the performance test is the default
requirement in proposed subpart M). You would be required to comply
with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for flares used to
comply with the referencing subpart.
For those periods when you conduct planned routine maintenance of
the control devices for your storage vessels, the proposed rule would
require that you add no material to the storage vessel during those
periods and limit the periods to a total of no more than 360 hr/yr. If
you need more than 240 hr/yr, you would have to keep a record that
explains why the extension was needed and describes how you minimized
the amount of time beyond 240 hours. In addition, you would need to
keep records of when the planned routine maintenance periods begin and
end and the type of maintenance performed.
7. What are the proposed requirements for control of fixed roof
atmospheric storage vessels if I route emissions to a fuel gas system
(``fuel gas system approach'')?
If you elect to control storage vessel emissions by routing
displaced vapor to a fuel gas system, you would be required to comply
with the requirements for fuel gas systems, as specified in proposed 40
CFR part 65, subpart M. Specifically, you would be required to: (1)
Submit a statement in your Notification of Compliance Status that the
emission stream is connected to the fuel gas system; (2) meet the
requirements for equipment in regulated material service in proposed 40
CFR part 65, subpart J for all equipment in the fuel gas system; (3)
comply with proposed 40 CFR 65.724 for any small boilers or process
heaters in the fuel gas system; and (4) not route halogenated streams
to the fuel gas system. In addition, you would be required to operate,
maintain and inspect the fixed roof, and repair leaks as specified in
section III.A.3 of this preamble. The proposed procedures for
inspecting or monitoring the equipment also are the same as for
equipment in a closed vent system as described in section III.A.6 of
this preamble.
8. What are the proposed requirements for pressure vessels?
The proposed rule defines a pressure vessel as a storage vessel
that is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of
compression of the vapor headspace in the vessel during filling of the
vessel to its design capacity. The proposed rule would require all
openings in a pressure vessel to be equipped with closure devices. In
addition, you would be required to conduct annual performance tests
using either Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or optical gas
imaging to show pressure vessels operate with an instrument reading
less than 500 ppmv (for Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) or
no emissions are imaged by the instrument (for optical gas imaging).
Each time you obtain an instrument reading equal to or greater than 500
ppmv (for Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7) or emissions are
imaged (for optical gas imaging), it would be a deviation of the
emission limit, and you would be required to estimate, record and
report the amount of regulated material emissions during the time the
pressure vessel is out of compliance with the emission limit.
The proposed rule would require that all purge streams be routed
through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces regulated
material emissions by at least 98 percent or to an outlet concentration
less than 20 ppmv. Inert material purging is a short duration
maintenance procedure required by good engineering practice to ensure
proper operation of this type of storage system. The closed vent system
would be subject to the same bypass line requirements and monitoring
and inspection requirements as for a closed vent system that conveys
emissions from an atmospheric storage vessel to a control device; see
section III.A.6 of this preamble for details. The proposed compliance
requirements for a control device would be the same as for a control
device that controls emissions from an atmospheric storage vessel; see
section III.A.6 of this preamble for details.
[[Page 17911]]
9. What are the proposed requirements for control of transfer
operations to load transport vehicles?
For each transfer rack that you use to load transport vehicles, you
would be required to transfer the regulated material to the transport
vehicles using submerged loading or bottom loading.
In addition, you would be required to control displacement
emissions of regulated materials from the transport vehicles if you
transfer more than 35 million gallons per year (gal/yr) of liquids with
a weighted average MTVP greater than 4 psia. The proposed rule includes
three compliance approaches for these emissions. One approach is to
route the displaced emissions from the transport vehicle through a
closed vent system to any combination of control devices. In this case,
the proposed requirements are the same as those proposed for closed
vent systems and control devices used to control emissions from storage
vessels; see section III.A.6 of this preamble for details.
A second approach is to route the displaced emissions from the
transport vehicle to a fuel gas system. Again, the proposed
requirements are the same as the proposed requirements for storage
vessels that are controlled by routing emissions to a fuel gas system.
The third approach is to design and operate a vapor balancing
system to route vapors that are displaced from loading regulated
liquids into transport vehicles back to the storage vessel or to
another storage vessel that is connected to a common header. The
proposed vapor balancing approach includes the following requirements:
(1) Designing the vapor balancing system to prevent any regulated
material vapors collected at one transfer rack from passing to another
transfer rack; (2) equipping all vapor connections and lines in the
vapor-collection equipment and vapor balancing system with closures
that seal upon disconnect; (3) ensuring PRD in the system do not open
while the transport vehicle is being filled with regulated material;
(4) conducting the same LDAR procedures for equipment in the vapor
balancing system as for equipment in a closed vent system; and (5)
complying with the same bypass line requirements as in the proposed
requirements for closed vent systems. You would not be allowed to use
the vapor balancing approach if the applicable storage vessel has a
floating roof.
Each transport vehicle that you load with regulated material that
has a MTVP of regulated material greater than 4 psia would be required
to pass an annual vapor tightness test conducted using Method 27 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-8. All other transport vehicles that you load
with regulated material must either pass an annual vapor tightness test
conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or have a
current certification in accordance with DOT pressure test requirements
for cargo tanks or tank cars. You would be required to keep records of
the DOT certifications and tests conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-8. You also would be required to take actions to
assure that your vapor balancing system, closed vent system or fuel gas
system is connected to the transport vehicle's vapor-collection
equipment during each transfer of regulated material to transport
vehicles.
10. What are the proposed requirements for control of transfer
operations to load containers?
For each transfer of regulated material to a container at a
transfer rack that loads only containers, you would be required, at a
minimum, to use either submerged fill or fitted opening/transfer line
purging. Whenever a container contains a regulated material, you would
also be required to install and secure all covers and closure devices
in the closed position, except when you need to access the container
(e.g., for adding or removing material, sampling or cleaning). You
would also be required to demonstrate annually that containers, 55
gallons and larger, that are loaded and then used for onsite storage
are vapor tight by using one of two approaches. One approach is to use
Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, under the same test
conditions specified for testing transport vehicles, and the second
approach is to monitor each potential leak interface on the container
for leaks using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. When
monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, an
instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv would constitute a leak that
you would be required to repair within 15 days.
We are proposing three more effective compliance approaches that
you may elect to comply with as an alternative to conducting submerged
filling. The first approach is to route emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device in accordance with the same requirements
that apply to closed vent systems and control devices that are used to
control emissions from transfers to transport vehicles. The second
approach is to design and operate a vapor balancing system that routes
displaced vapors back to the storage vessel from which the transferred
liquid originated. The requirements would be the same as for the vapor
balancing approach for controlling emissions from transfers to
transport vehicles. For example, vapor connection and lines in the
vapor-collection equipment and vapor balancing system would have to be
equipped with closures that seal upon disconnect. Any PRD on the
container would have to remain closed while the container is being
filled, and you would be required to comply with the same bypass line
requirements and LDAR requirements for equipment in the vapor balancing
system that are being proposed for closed vent systems. The third
approach is to conduct the transfer operations inside a permanent total
enclosure (meeting the criteria specified in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B)
that is vented through a closed vent system to a control device. The
requirements for the closed vent system and control device would be the
same as in the first approach described above.
11. What are the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
Recordkeeping. Proposed subpart I would require records related to
both storage vessels and transfer operations. For each storage vessel
that contains a regulated material, you would be required to record the
vessel dimensions, storage capacity and type of stored material. In
addition, proposed subpart I would require records related to each type
of storage vessel and each compliance approach. Many of these records
would require documentation of the dates and results of inspections
(for fixed roofs, floating roofs, closed vent systems, fuel gas systems
and vapor balancing systems), including descriptions of repairs or
actions taken to remedy leaks or inspection failures.
Other records related to storage vessels would require
documentation of: (1) The start and end dates of floating roof landing
events and the procedure used to refloat the roof; (2) decisions to use
extensions for inspections and repair/removal from service; (3) dates
of each overfill event; (4) DOT certifications of vapor tightness tests
for transport vehicles used to comply with the vapor balancing
approach; (5) vapor tightness test results for barges used to comply
with the vapor balancing approach; (6) date and time when periods of
planned routine maintenance of a control device begin and end; and (7)
identification of each potential source of vapor leakage in a closed
vent system that is not defined as a piece of ``equipment.'' If you
comply with closed vent system and control device requirements or fuel
gas system
[[Page 17912]]
requirements specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, you would
also be required to keep applicable records as specified in proposed
subpart M. Similarly, if you comply with equipment monitoring
requirements for a closed vent system or fuel gas system, or if you
operate a closed vent system in vacuum service, you would be required
to keep records that are related to these provisions, as specified in
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. If you comply with the vapor
balancing approach, you would be required to keep a record of the
setting on the PRD that prevents breathing losses from the storage
vessel. You would also be required to keep records of your estimates of
emissions from: (1) Each spill caused by overfilling a storage vessel;
(2) a storage vessel while the floating roof is landed; and (3) a
pressure vessel that does not comply with the required emission limit.
For transfer operations, you would be required to keep records of
vapor tightness tests of transport vehicles that are loaded with liquid
that has a regulated material vapor pressure greater than 4 psia and
DOT certifications of vapor tightness tests for other transport
vehicles that are loaded with regulated material. If you comply with
the approach to route emissions through a closed vent system to a
control device or the fuel gas system approach, you would be required
to keep records of monitoring, inspections and leak repairs, as
specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, and you would be
required to comply with the recordkeeping requirements specified in
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, for the applicable control device.
If you comply with the approach to load containers inside an enclosure,
you would be required to keep records of the most recent calculations
and measurements performed to verify that the enclosure meets the
criteria of a permanent total enclosure, as specified in 40 CFR 52.741,
appendix B.
Notification of Compliance Status. In the Notification of
Compliance Status required by the referencing subpart and proposed 40
CFR part 65, subpart H, you would be required to include the
identification of each storage vessel, its storage capacity and the
liquid stored in the storage vessel. You would also be required to
include identification of each transfer rack that loads regulated
material into transport vehicles or containers. In addition, if you
comply with the vapor balancing approach for a storage vessel (i.e.,
proposed 40 CFR 65.320), and any PRD on that storage vessel is set to
relieve at less than 2.5 psig, you would be required to provide
rationale for why that setting is sufficient to prevent breathing
losses from the storage vessel. Finally, if you comply with any
provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or 40 CFR part 65, subpart M of
the Uniform Standards, you must comply with any notification
requirements related to those provisions that are specified in subpart
J or subpart M.
Semiannual periodic report. Semiannual periodic reports must
include: (1) Documentation of the date when a storage vessel was
emptied or repaired if the action was not conducted before the end of a
second extension period, as required in proposed 40 CFR 65.310(d) or
65.315(d); (2) storage vessel identification and the start and end
dates of each floating roof landing that does not meet one of the
criteria in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(b)(1); (3) a copy of the inspection
report for a pressure vessel when you obtain an instrument reading
greater than 500 ppmv when using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7, or an image of emissions when monitoring using optical gas
imaging; and (4) any information required in semiannual periodic
reports by proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or proposed 40 CFR part
65, subpart M related to provisions in those subparts with which you
comply.
Annual periodic reports. Annual periodic reports required by the
referencing subpart must include the following information: (1)
Inspection results for fixed and floating roofs when a failure or leak
is detected; (2) estimated emissions each time a floating roof is
landed; (3) estimated emissions each time a storage vessel is
overfilled; (4) estimated emissions each time a pressure vessel fails a
performance test; and (5) any information required in annual periodic
reports by proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J or proposed 40 CFR part
65, subpart M related to provisions in those subparts with which you
comply.
Other reports. We are proposing that you notify the Administrator
at least 30 days prior to each planned inspection of rim seals and deck
fittings in storage vessels. If an inspection is unplanned and you
could not have known about the inspection 30 days in advance, then you
would be required to notify the Administrator at least 7 days before
the inspection. A delegated state or local agency may waive the
requirement for notification of inspections.
B. Rationale
We developed the proposed requirements in subpart I based on a
review of requirements in current federal and state rules, a survey of
technology for controlling and monitoring emissions from storage
vessels and transfer operations and an analysis of the cost impacts of
various compliance approaches.
The rules listed in Table 2 of this preamble include many
provisions that we have developed as the most effective provisions for
controlling emissions from storage vessels and transfer operations.
These provisions form the backbone of proposed subpart I. In addition,
the Generic MACT subparts were already organized to be referenced from
source category-specific subparts. One difference between the Generic
MACT rules and the proposed rule is how the storage vessel and transfer
rack operating condition thresholds for a particular control
requirement are specified. The Generic MACT relies on the referencing
subpart to specify the range of characteristics that a storage vessel
or transfer rack must possess to be subject to a particular control
requirement. Conversely, proposed subpart I specifies both the
thresholds and control requirements that would apply to storage vessels
and transfer racks at any facility that is subject to a referencing
subpart that incorporates those Uniform Standards provisions. If, while
developing a referencing subpart, we identify a reason to select a
different threshold for that source category (such as a difference
driven by a prior MACT, AMOS or BSER decision for that subcategory), we
would specify that threshold in the referencing subpart and indicate it
applies in place of the threshold specified in proposed subpart I. The
proposed subpart I thresholds and corresponding control requirements
were determined based on the survey of technology and the cost impacts
analysis; typically, the proposed requirements represent the best level
of emission reduction for which we determined the costs are reasonable
for model storage vessels and transfer racks.
Another overarching difference between proposed subpart I and the
Generic MACT subparts is that proposed subpart I was organized to be
consistent with the ``plain language'' format that we have adopted
since the Generic MACT rules were promulgated. The following sections
describe the rationale for the proposed provisions in subpart I.
[[Page 17913]]
Table 2--Rules Used To Develop Requirements in Proposed Subpart I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current rule used as starting
Provisions in proposed subpart I point for the proposed provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floating roofs....................... National Emission Standards for
Storage Vessels (Tanks)--Control
Level 2 (40 CFR part 63, subpart
WW; ``Generic MACT for Tanks
Level 2'')
Fixed roofs.......................... National Emission Standards for
Tanks--Level 1 (40 CFR part 63,
subpart OO; ``Generic MACT for
Tanks Level 1'')
Vapor balancing...................... National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF; ``MON'')
Pressure vessels..................... National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Off-Site Waste and Recovery
Operations (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DD)
Transfer to transport vehicles....... National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Organic Liquids Distribution
(Non-Gasoline) (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EEEE; ``OLD NESHAP'')
Transfer to containers............... National Emission Standards for
Containers (40 CFR part 63,
subpart PP; ``Generic MACT for
Containers'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How is the EPA proposing to define the term ``storage vessel?''
We are proposing a definition of ``storage vessel'' that is
generally consistent with the definition in the Generic MACT for Tanks
Level 2, in that it means ``a stationary unit that [* * *] is designed
to hold an accumulation of liquids or other materials.'' The definition
also contains many of the same elements as definitions in many rules in
40 CFR part 63. For example, the proposed definition excludes vessels
permanently attached to a motor vehicle, vessels containing regulated
material only as impurities and wastewater tanks. Differences between
the proposed definition and the definition in the Generic MACT for
Tanks Level 2 and most other rules in 40 CFR part 63 are that the
proposed definition specifically excludes process tanks, and it does
not exclude pressure vessels. We excluded process tanks from the
proposed definition because such vessels are in operation only when the
process is operating, and they generally operate at process
temperatures without the potential for significant emissions due to
diurnal temperature changes. As a result, their emissions are more like
other process vent emissions than storage tank emissions. We are
proposing to include pressure vessels as a subset of storage vessels
because we are proposing requirements for pressure vessels that differ
from the requirements for atmospheric storage vessels. Proposed 40 CFR
part 65, subpart H also defines both ``pressure vessel'' and
``atmospheric storage vessel.''
We request comment on the clarity of this definition and the effect
it would have if it were to apply in place of the current definitions
in rules that could someday reference proposed subpart I for storage
vessel requirements. In particular, we are interested in identification
of any types of materials stored that could become subject to a rule
that are not currently subject under a current rule's definition.
2. How did the EPA determine the applicability thresholds and control
approaches for atmospheric storage vessels?
As discussed in section III.A.2 of this preamble, any one of four
specified compliance approaches would be required to control emissions
from each atmospheric storage vessel that exceeds any pair of tank
capacity and regulated material MTVP thresholds in Table 1 of proposed
subpart I. Emissions from all other storage vessels that contain
regulated material would have to be controlled using either any of
these same four approaches or by equipping the storage vessel with a
fixed roof that meets specified design and operation criteria.
As part of our survey of technology, we estimated impacts for
several control options for typical fixed roof storage vessels and EFR
storage vessels. One purpose of the analysis was to determine
applicable thresholds above which the costs for each control option are
reasonable. Consistent with requirements in current rules, the
thresholds we examined were the vessel size and the vapor pressure of
the stored material.
All of the control options that we evaluated involved variations in
the requirements for floating roofs or changes to the storage vessel.
We focused on floating roof controls because these are the most common
controls currently in use, and the only feasible options for baseline
EFR storage vessels. We did not estimate costs for the other compliance
approaches for fixed roof storage vessels for various reasons. We did
not estimate the costs to connect fixed roof storage vessels to a
closed vent system and control device because these costs have been
shown in previous analyses to exceed the costs of floating roofs (e.g.,
see EPA-450/3-81-003a, EPA-450/3-80-025 or the memorandum titled MACT
Floor, Regulatory Alternatives, and Nationwide Impacts for Storage
Tanks at Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, in
item II-B-28 in docket A-96-04). Many atmospheric fixed roof storage
vessels are designed to operate at pressure much lower than the 2.5
psig set pressure for PRD that is required in vapor balancing options.
Therefore, we did not estimate costs for vapor balancing because this
approach is technically feasible for only a subset of atmospheric
storage vessels. We did not estimate costs for routing storage vessel
emissions to a fuel gas system because this option would not be
available at some facilities. Furthermore, the performance of these
other control techniques is expected to be the same or only marginally
superior to the performance of IFR, particularly for larger storage
vessels and storage vessels storing material with higher vapor
pressures.
In the impacts analysis for fixed roof storage vessels, Control
Option ST1 was installation of a typical IFR with typical rim seals and
deck fittings, except that we varied the type of guide pole (none,
solid and slotted). We assumed typical IFR are constructed from bolted
aluminum panels, that the deck floats on pontoons and that the rim seal
is a mechanical shoe seal. Based on information in AP-42 chapter 7, we
assumed that even without a regulatory driver, roof legs, sample wells,
stub drains and vacuum breakers typically are controlled in a manner
consistent with the requirements in current rules such as 40 CFR part
63, subpart WW. Control Option ST2 was to upgrade other fittings, as
necessary, with gasketed covers, wipers and other features needed to
meet requirements in current rules such as subpart WW. Additional
controls were applied under control Option ST2 only for column wells,
ladder wells, guidepoles,
[[Page 17914]]
automatic gauge float wells and access hatches. Current rules allow a
variety of control options for slotted guidepoles. In this analysis, we
assumed for Option ST2 that controlled slotted guidepoles in IFR
storage vessels are equipped with a gasketed cover, pole sleeve and
pole wiper. Note that Control Option ST2 is also a control option for a
storage vessel that is currently equipped with a typical IFR.
We assumed the baseline EFR storage vessel is equipped with a
single rim seal (mechanical shoe) and typical fittings, except that we
varied the type of guide pole (either solid or slotted). For such
vessels, Control Option ST3 was to install a secondary rim seal, which
we assumed would be rim-mounted. Control Option ST4 was to upgrade
fittings, like in Control Option ST2 for fixed roof storage vessels. In
this case, additional controls were applied under Control Option ST4
only for guidepoles and automatic gauge float wells because other
fittings typically would be controlled to current regulatory levels in
the absence of a regulatory driver. For this analysis we assumed that
controlled slotted guidepoles in EFR storage vessels are equipped with
gasketed covers and flexible enclosures. Proposed subpart I would allow
a variety of compliance approaches for slotted guidepoles; we elected
to evaluate a flexible enclosure in the impacts analysis because it
shows a net cost savings even for the most costly approach. Control
Option ST5 was to install a dome over storage vessels that meet the
Control Option ST4 requirements.
We estimated baseline and controlled emissions using the AP-42
procedures. Inputs for the analysis included meteorological conditions
for Houston, Texas, and typical throughputs obtained from a survey of
the chemical manufacturing industry (see EPA-450/3-80-025). Costs were
obtained from vendors. Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the cost-
effectiveness estimates of the two control options for three sizes of
model fixed roof storage vessels storing materials with a range of
vapor pressures. Table 4 of this preamble shows the cost-effectiveness
estimates of the three control options for model EFR storage vessels.
Table 4 of this preamble also shows that the cost of Control Option ST5
(adding a dome over an EFR storage vessel that is already complying
with Control Options ST3 and ST4) are unreasonable for all model
vessels in the analysis; therefore, we rejected this control option
from further consideration. Although we evaluated a variety of guide
pole scenarios, as discussed above, the results in Table 3 of this
preamble are for model storage vessels with a solid guide pole, and the
results in Table 4 of this preamble are for model storage vessels with
a slotted guide pole; the results for the other guide pole scenarios
were not significantly different, and they would not lead to different
conclusions. See the memorandum titled Survey of Control Technology for
Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control
Options, in the docket for proposed subpart I for a more detailed
discussion of how these impacts were developed.
Table 3--Estimated Cost Effectiveness of Control Options ST1 and ST2 for
Model Fixed Roof Storage Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness \a\ ($/ton)
-------------------------------------------
Model storage vessel size Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius
(gal) (psia)
-------------------------------------------
0.5 0.75 1.9 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Option ST1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000...................... 16,300 8,800 2,100 1,100
40,000...................... 6,300 3,300 1,300 730
200,000..................... 1,100 600 140 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Option ST2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000...................... 18,900 12,000 4,200 2,500
40,000...................... 17,900 11,800 4,600 2,900
200,000..................... 19,000 12,000 4,200 2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST2 are incremental
relative to Control Option ST1.
Table 4--Estimated Cost Effectiveness of Control Options ST3, ST4 and
ST5 for Model EFR Storage Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness ($/ton) \a\
-------------------------------------------
Model storage vessel size Vapor pressure at 25 degrees Celsius
(gal) (psia)
-------------------------------------------
0.5 0.75 1.9 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Option ST3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000...................... 13,500 9,200 3,800 2,500
40,000...................... 13,000 8,600 3,300 2,100
200,000..................... 10,500 6,800 2,600 1,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Option ST4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000...................... (450) (580) (760) (800)
40,000...................... (360) (510) (720) (780)
200,000..................... (5) (260) (610) (700)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17915]]
Control Option ST5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,000...................... 100,000 71,000 32,000 21,000
40,000...................... 110,000 74,000 31,000 20,000
200,000..................... 120,000 78,000 33,000 21,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The cost-effectiveness values for Control Option ST4 are incremental
relative to Control Option ST3, and the cost-effectiveness values for
Control Option ST5 are incremental relative to Control Option ST4.
Current rules specify requirements comparable to the combined
requirements in Control Options ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4 for atmospheric
storage vessels, but the size and vapor pressure thresholds in the
rules vary. For comparison purposes, the HON requires control of
emissions from storage vessels with a capacity of at least 40,000
gallons that store material with a vapor pressure of at least 0.75
psia, and storage vessels with a capacity of at least 20,000 gallons
that store material with a vapor pressure of at least 1.9 psia. Tables
3 and 4 of this preamble show the incremental cost impacts for storage
vessels at these thresholds range from a cost savings for Control
Option ST4 to $12,000/ton for storage vessels storing material with a
vapor pressure of 0.75 psia under Control Option ST2.
Although cost effectiveness is an important consideration in
establishing thresholds for proposed subpart I, we also considered the
practicality of setting thresholds less stringent than the thresholds
in the HON and other current rules. This would be impractical because,
when those rules are amended to reference the Uniform Standards, they
would have to override such thresholds in order to satisfy statutory
MACT, AMOS and other regulatory requirements. Therefore, we have
decided to propose the thresholds that are used in the HON (see Table 1
of this preamble). These thresholds are widely applicable because many
current rules reference the HON, and we think they represent the best
choice as defaults for the Uniform Standards. We request comment on
this decision.
For most chemical manufacturing facilities, the costs to comply
with the combined requirements of Control Options ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4
for atmospheric storage vessels above the proposed thresholds are
expected to be zero or minimal because they are already subject to
current rules that have the same or similar thresholds and control
requirements. However, many storage vessels at petroleum refineries are
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, which does not require control
of deck fittings (i.e., Control Options ST2 and ST4). Based on
information provided by petroleum refiners in response to an
information request, we determined that nationwide there are
approximately 2,400 storage vessels with an EFR and 1,400 storage
vessels with an IFR that meet or exceed the proposed thresholds in
Table 1 of this preamble and about 60 percent of these storage vessels
have slotted guidepoles (see the petroleum refinery database in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682). About 50 percent of the IFR storage
vessels that have slotted guidepoles are controlled, and about two-
thirds of the EFR storage vessels that have slotted guidepoles are
controlled. We assumed all of the other fittings have typical controls
(i.e., consistent with Control Options ST1 and ST3). We also assumed
each EFR is equipped with two rim seals, as required in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC, and in Control Option ST3. To estimate current annual
emissions, we first represented each storage vessel with one of four
model sizes. Each model storage vessel also was assigned one of four
model liquids, depending on the reported vapor pressure of the actual
stored liquid. Storage vessels containing liquids with the lowest vapor
pressures were represented with methyl ethyl ketone. The other storage
vessels were organized into three groups, each of which was represented
with a different grade of gasoline.
We estimated the current and controlled emissions for each model-
refinery storage vessel using the AP-42 procedures and other
assumptions, as described above in the discussion of the analysis to
establish thresholds for control. We estimated costs to upgrade
fittings for each storage vessel using the same information that we
used in the analysis to establish thresholds for control. We also
applied a product recovery credit of $500/ton of VOC to the prevented
emissions. The emission reductions associated with upgrading the deck
fittings on EFR storage vessels, particularly slotted guidepoles,
resulted in a product recovery credit that exceeded the estimate of all
costs associated with Control Options ST2 and ST4. Thus, the nationwide
impacts of the control options for petroleum refineries is a cost
savings of about $350/ton of VOC controlled. See the memorandum titled
Survey of Control Technology for Storage Vessels Analysis of Impacts
for Storage Vessel Control Options, in the docket for proposed subpart
I for additional discussion of how these impacts were developed.
3. How did the EPA determine the control and compliance requirements
for fixed roof atmospheric storage vessels?
All atmospheric storage vessels below the capacity and MTVP
thresholds noted in section III.A.2 of this preamble would have to be
equipped with a fixed roof. Although most current rules do not specify
standards for such storage vessels, we expect that storage vessels at
facilities that may in the future be subject to rules that reference
the Uniform Standards already meet this proposed requirement. Thus, we
do not expect any cost or emission impacts to meet this requirement. We
request comment on the accuracy of this assumption.
The design and operating requirements that we are proposing for
fixed roofs are based on the requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks
Level 1. However, we are proposing the seven changes to the
requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, described below, to
control more effectively fugitive emissions, simplify requirements and
enhance consistency with requirements for storage vessels that may be
subject to other sections in proposed subpart I.
[[Page 17916]]
First, we are not proposing to specify suitable materials for the
fixed roof and closure devices. We decided that these decisions are
best left to you and the storage vessel manufacturer. You would have
the flexibility to choose whatever materials work best in your
situation, provided you meet the design and operational requirements in
proposed subpart I.
Second, like the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, proposed subpart I
would allow opening of a closure device or removal of the roof when
needed to provide access. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 specifies
that the closure devices may be opened to provide access for
``performing routine inspection, maintenance, or other activities
needed for normal operations'' and ``to remove accumulated sludge or
other residues from the bottom of the tank.'' In proposed subpart I, we
use an edited version of these statements to clarify that the opening
is allowed for ``manual operations that require access such as
inspections, maintenance, sampling, and cleaning.'' A related
difference between the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 and the proposed
rule is that the proposed rule does not explicitly state that the
closure device must be secured in the closed position or the roof
reinstalled when the activity that requires access is complete. Such a
statement is unnecessary, because the inverse of the provision allows
openings when access is needed. The proposed rule clearly states that
closure devices must be closed at all times except when access is
needed.
Third, as in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1, proposed subpart I
would allow you to route emissions from an opening through a closed
vent system to a control device as an alternative to equipping the
opening with a closure device. However, the Generic MACT for Tanks
Level 1 does not specify compliance procedures for this control option.
To ensure that emission reductions are consistent and quantifiable when
a control device is used, we are proposing to require compliance with
the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 65.325 for closed vent systems and
control devices.
Fourth, the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 specifies at 40 CFR
63.902(c)(3) that opening of a safety device is allowed at any time.
This provision was not included in proposed subpart I because the
referencing subparts will address malfunctions.
Fifth, we are proposing delay of repair provisions that differ from
the requirements in the Generic MACT for Storage Tanks Level 1. The
primary difference between the Generic MACT for Storage Tanks Level 1
and proposed subpart I is the time allowed to complete repair. The
Generic MACT for Tanks Level 1 allows delay as long as the owner or
operator demonstrates that alternative tank capacity is not available
to accept the regulated material from the tank that needs to be
repaired, whereas the proposed rule would allow a maximum delay of 105
days (45 days plus up to two extensions of up to 30 days each). We have
determined that 105 days is sufficient time to empty the tank, either
to other existing tanks on site or to temporary storage, if necessary.
Furthermore, current rules (and proposed subpart I) already include
such requirements for repair of any floating roof, and applying the
same requirements for fixed roof storage tanks would promote
consistency and reduce the likelihood of inadvertent compliance errors.
Sixth, we are proposing to require periodic monitoring of each
potential source of vapor leakage from the fixed roof and fittings on
the roof instead of annual visual inspections for defects. The
monitoring could be conducted annually using Method 21 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7 or semiannually using optical gas imaging (after
promulgation of the protocol that we are developing for 40 CFR part 60,
appendix K). See sections III.A.3 and IV.A.5 of this preamble for
discussions of the protocol. Repairs would be required for each leak. A
leak would be defined as any instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv
when monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, or any
emissions imaged when using an optical gas imaging instrument. We are
proposing this monitoring change to better control fugitive emissions.
As documented in the docket for proposed subpart I, EPA inspectors have
often found significant leaks from fittings by sensory means
(particularly olfactory) and optical gas imaging when visual
inspections indicate the gaskets and other elements of closure devices
appear to be sound, and the conservation vent is not actively releasing
to relieve increased pressure caused by diurnal temperature changes or
filling the storage vessel (see the memorandum titled Leaks Observed
From Fixed Roof and Floating Roof Fittings, in the docket for proposed
subpart I).
The estimated annual costs, emission reductions and cost-
effectiveness values for the three monitoring options are shown in
Table 5 of this preamble. The estimated cost-effectiveness values for
monitoring using either optical gas imaging or Method 21 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7 are less than $230/ton per storage vessel, which we
determined is reasonable. Note that the emission reductions for these
two options are relative to estimated uncontrolled emissions. We lack
the data needed to attempt to quantify the reductions for the visual
inspections option, but we expect the reductions to be significantly
less than for the other two options given the results of agency
inspections noted above.
The impacts were estimated for a representative fixed roof storage
vessel with eight fittings on the roof (an access hatch, gauge hatch,
conservation vent, emergency pressure relief vent and four other
miscellaneous types of valves and instruments). Costs were estimated
assuming a visual inspection takes an average of 30 minutes and the
other monitoring options take between 40 minutes and an hour, depending
on the size of the facility at which the storage vessel is located.
Based on the results of agency inspections, we estimated that initial
optical gas imaging would find about 0.5 leaking fittings per storage
vessel, and that monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7, would find an average of about 1 leaking fitting per storage
vessel. We assumed that subsequent monitoring would find about 5-
percent leaking fittings if optical gas imaging is conducted
semiannually and monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7, is conducted annually. As in equipment leak analyses, repair costs
were estimated assuming 75 percent of the leaks could be eliminated by
a simple adjustment to the fitting and that 25 percent of the fittings
would require a more extensive repair or replacement. Recordkeeping
costs were estimated assuming 1 hr/yr to document the results of visual
inspections and 0.5 hr/yr to document the results of the other
monitoring options. Reporting costs were estimated assuming 0.5 hour
per reporting period, to include records in annual periodic reports of
inspections of each storage vessel for which a leak was found, and that
40 percent of the storage vessels have one leaking fitting each year
(i.e., 5 percent of the fittings are found to be leaking, and each tank
has an average of eight fittings). Uncontrolled emissions for the
conservation vent, emergency pressure relief vent and miscellaneous
valves were estimated using average emission factors from the Protocol
for Equipment Leaks Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017) for such
equipment in the SOCMI. Uncontrolled emissions for access hatches and
gauge hatches were approximated using AP-42 factors for such fittings
on EFR
[[Page 17917]]
(unbolted, gasketed cover for access hatches and gasketed, weighted
mechanical actuation gauge hatches). Controlled emissions were
estimated assuming the percent reduction in emissions equals the
percent reduction in the number of fittings found to be leaking.
Table 5--Estimated Impacts of Monitoring Options for Fixed Roof Storage Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
reduction Cost Incremental cost
Monitoring option Total annual relative to effectiveness effectiveness
cost ($/yr) uncontrolled ($/ton) ($/ton)
(tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual.................................. 120 unknown unknown N/A
EPA Method 21........................... 170 1.1 150 unknown
Optical gas imaging..................... 260 1.1 230 undefined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tpy means tons per year.
N/A means not applicable.
We request comment, with supporting rationale, on all aspects of
the proposed requirements for fixed roof storage vessels that store
regulated material. We are particularly interested in comment on the
proposed monitoring requirements. For example, itemized cost estimates,
data on mass emissions from leaks and information about the types of
initial repairs that would be needed and the expected frequency of
replacements would be useful. Comparisons of results obtained using
both Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and optical gas imaging
are requested.
4. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for atmospheric
storage vessels that are controlled using an IFR or EFR?
As noted in section III.A.2 of this preamble, we are proposing four
different compliance approaches for atmospheric storage vessels that
exceed specified capacity and MTVP thresholds. One of these approaches
is to use a floating roof. The requirements that we are proposing for
this approach in proposed 40 CFR 65.315 are essentially the same as the
requirements in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. We are proposing
additional requirements and clarifications as described below.
Rim seal design. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies
alternative rim seal configurations for IFR and EFR storage vessels at
40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i) and (ii). However, if certain conditions are
met, 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(1)(i)(D) and (ii)(C) specify that full
compliance with these configurations is not required for existing tanks
until the next time the storage vessel is completely emptied and
degassed or 10 years after promulgation of the referencing subpart,
whichever occurs first. The storage vessel provisions in 40 CFR
63.119(b) and (c) of the HON contain the same provision. We are not
proposing this delayed compliance provision because we expect most
rules that reference the Uniform Standards will be amended versions of
current rules, and these amended rules will not reference the Uniform
Standards until more than 10 years after their original promulgation.
Thus, all existing storage vessels that are subject to a referencing
subpart should already be equipped with the required rim seals before
they become subject to the Uniform Standards.
One of the objectives of rim seals is to help fill the annular
space between the rim of the floating roof and the wall of the storage
vessel thereby minimizing evaporative losses from this area. To meet
this objective, rim seals must be constructed of a material that is
impermeable to the stored material or any components of the stored
material. A rim seal that is saturated with (or has been plasticized
by) stored liquid would constitute an inspection failure because the
rim seal would not be functioning as designed. In proposed subpart I,
this requirement is specified in section 65.315(c)(1)(iii). We request
comment on whether explicitly stating in subpart I that rim seal
material saturated with (or plasticized by) stored liquid constitutes
an inspection failure would help clarify this requirement. We also
request comment on other possible approaches for clarifying this
requirement. In addition, we are interested in strategies that could
minimize repeated use of seal materials that are demonstrated to be
less reliable than others. For example, we request comment on the
feasibility and potential effectiveness of requiring more frequent
inspections if a seal that failed during the first 5 years of use is
replaced with a seal made from the same material.
Sample well requirements. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2
specifies at 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(v) that each sample well and each
deck drain that empties into the stored liquid may be equipped with a
slit fabric seal or similar device that covers at least 90 percent of
the opening instead of a deck cover. In other rules, such as the CAR,
the HON and Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23,
1984 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb; ``NSPS Kb''), the option for sample
wells to use a slit fabric cover applies only for IFR. Therefore, to
clarify the requirement, we are proposing to split the requirements for
sample wells and deck drains into two paragraphs in subpart I. As an
alternative to using a gasketed deck cover, proposed 40 CFR
65.315(a)(3)(v) specifies that sample wells in IFR may be equipped with
a slit fabric seal (or similar device) that covers at least 90 percent
of the opening. Proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(vi) specifies that each
opening for a deck drain (in any floating roof) that empties into the
stored liquid must be equipped with a slit fabric (or similar device)
that covers at least 90 percent of the opening.
Control requirements for guidepoles. The Generic MACT for Tanks
Level 2 specifies in 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(vii) that each unslotted
guide pole shall be equipped with a gasketed cap on the top of the
guide pole. We are proposing an alternative to this provision for
proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(viii) to indicate that a welded cap is an
acceptable alternative to a gasketed cap for anti-rotational devices.
The cap may be welded on an unslotted guide pole because such a guide
pole is not used for gauging the liquid level. Emissions reductions are
expected to be the same for both types of caps.
As part of the STERPP, we offered to enter into agreements with
companies that have installed or will install controls to reduce their
slotted guide pole emissions from storage vessels that
[[Page 17918]]
are subject to Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After May 18, 1978, and Prior to July 23, 1984
(40 CFR part 60, subpart Ka) or NSPS Kb. During development of the
program, we identified two additional slotted guide pole control
options that are not included in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2.
The STERPP included these options because their performance was
determined to be comparable to the performance of other control options
already specified in the rules. One of the new options is to use a
flexible enclosure device that completely encloses the slotted guide
pole and a cover on the top of the guide pole. The second new option is
to install an internal guide pole sleeve, a pole wiper and a cover on
the top of the guide pole. We are proposing to include both of these
options in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(a)(3)(ix). As discussed above for
unslotted guidepoles, the cover may be either gasketed or welded. There
is no cost impact associated with these control options because these
options are providing compliance flexibility without imposing new
requirements.
Control requirements for slotted ladder legs. Many IFR tanks have a
ladder with one slotted leg so that the leg can also be used for
gauging and/or sampling. Current rules specify that ladder wells must
have gasketed sliding deck covers, and slotted guidepoles must be
controlled using any one of several techniques. However, current rules
do not explicitly specify requirements for slotted ladder legs.
Therefore, we are proposing to require any one of three options for
this type of fitting. One option is to use a pole float in the slotted
leg and pole wipers for both legs. A second option is to use a ladder
sleeve and pole wipers for both legs. The third option is to use a
flexible device that completely encloses the ladder and either a
gasketed or welded cap on the top of the slotted leg. Each option also
includes the requirement to have a gasketed sliding deck cover. These
controls are similar to the controls for slotted guidepoles, and they
have been accepted in equivalency determinations for numerous storage
vessels that are subject to current rules. Thus, the costs to comply
with proposed subpart I would be the same as costs to comply with
current rules.
Delayed compliance date for deck fitting requirements. The Generic
MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies in 40 CFR 63.1063(a)(2)(ix) that deck
fitting requirements do not apply for an existing IFR or EFR until the
next time the storage vessel is completely emptied and degassed or 10
years after the promulgation date of the referencing subpart, whichever
occurs first. We have not included this provision in proposed subpart I
for the same reason described above regarding a similar provision for
rim seals (i.e., all existing storage tanks that may in the future be
subject to rules that reference the Uniform Standards should have
already complied with the deck fitting requirements before they become
subject to the Uniform Standards).
Operational requirements. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2
requires that the floating roof float on the stored liquid surface at
all times, except for times when the floating roof is supported by its
leg supports or other support devices such as hangers from the fixed
roof (``landings''). Once the floating roof lands, ``the process of
filling to the point of refloating the floating roof shall be
continuous and shall be performed as soon as practical'' (40 CFR
63.1063(b)(2)), and you must keep records of the date the roof landed
and the date it was refloated (40 CFR 63.1065(c)). The language at 40
CFR 63.1063(b)(2) is similar to the language in the CAR (40 CFR
65.43(b) and 65.44(b)), and the preamble to the CAR has clarified that
the intent of this language is ``to prevent the liquid level [in the
storage vessel] from rising and falling while the roof is resting on
the supports'' (63 FR 57768, October 28, 1998). However, neither the
Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 nor the CAR place any limits on the
number of landings or the amount of time that a floating roof may be
landed. The lack of limits is a concern because the standing idle
emissions can be significant, especially relative to the emissions and
emissions reductions for deck fittings while the roof is floating. For
example, Table 6 of this preamble presents estimated emissions from
typical gasoline storage tanks equipped with an EFR and standing idle
for 2 or 5 days. These emissions were estimated using AP-42 procedures
for a storage vessel in Corpus Christi, Texas. The landed height of the
roof was assumed to be 5 feet above the floor of the storage vessel,
and the liquid level was assumed to be 0.75 feet above the floor of the
storage vessel.
Table 6--Estimated Standing Idle Emissions From Gasoline Storage Vessels That are Equipped With an EFR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Size of storage vessel (gal) Stored contents Number of days standing idle
standing idle emissions (lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,000,000................................... gasoline...................... 2 830
5 2,100
7,000,000................................... gasoline...................... 2 1,500
5 3,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other rules (e.g., NSPS Kb) allow floating roof landings only if
the storage vessel is being completely emptied, and both the emptying
and refilling processes must be continuous and as rapid as possible.
This requirement has been interpreted as requiring the storage vessel
to be emptied each time the floating roof lands. However, as we
clarified in the preamble to the CAR (63 FR 57768), emptying the
storage vessel every time the roof lands is undesirable because it
increases the vapor space, which in turn increases emissions. Thus,
emptying the storage vessel when landings are inadvertent or other
times when emptying is not needed for operational reasons is
counterproductive.
To minimize emissions from landings and clarify the requirements,
we are proposing several differences relative to the requirements in
current rules. For example, instead of requiring the floating roof to
be floating on the liquid surface at all times except when it is landed
on its supports, we are proposing to list specific situations under
which the floating roof is not required to be floating on the stored
liquid (proposed 40 CFR 65.315(b)(1)). We are proposing to allow the
roof to be landed during the
[[Page 17919]]
initial fill because the landed height is typically several feet above
the floor of the storage vessel. We are not proposing to require
control of emissions in displaced gases during the initial fill because
the average concentration of regulated materials in the vapor space
over the course of the fill is relatively low, and the costs to vent
such emissions to a control device are not reasonable. Like current
rules, however, the proposed rule typically would require filling to
the point of refloating the roof to be conducted continuously and as
rapidly as practicable to minimize the amount of time a vapor space is
present below the floating roof. The only exception to the proposed
requirement for continuous filling until the roof is refloated would be
for storage vessels that are used to store product from batch
processes. The exemption would apply if the quantity of product from
one batch is insufficient to refloat the roof, but sufficient product
from additional batches to refloat the roof will be added before any
material is withdrawn from the storage vessel.
We also recognize that landings are required in order to take the
storage vessel out of service, and they are often required in order to
perform inspections, maintenance or before filling the storage vessel
with a liquid that is incompatible with the liquid currently stored in
the storage vessel. Therefore, we are proposing to allow roof landings
in these situations, provided the time spent standing idle is limited
to no more than 24 hours. After 24 hours, you would be required to
either begin actions to completely empty (and clean, if necessary) or
refill the storage vessel. These requirements clarify that you would
not be required to empty a storage vessel when the storage vessel does
not need to be empty in order to conduct maintenance or inspections.
The limited number of situations when landings are allowed is intended
to eliminate unnecessary or convenience landings, and the 24-hour limit
is intended to prevent emissions from unnecessary time spent standing
idle. We request comment on the suitability of the 24-hour limit. In
particular, we request comment on specific situations where a storage
vessel does not need to be completely emptied to perform maintenance or
inspection, but the maintenance or inspection activity cannot be
completed in less than 24 hours. We also request comment on the
proposed list of circumstances under which floating roof landings would
be allowed, in particular whether there are other circumstances that
would require a floating roof landing or whether the list allows
landings in situations where they are unnecessary.
We are also proposing to allow landings if you elect to route
emissions through a closed vent system to a control device that reduces
emissions by at least 90 percent while the roof is landed because this
control technique will also reduce standing loss emissions relative to
uncontrolled landings. To prevent liquid from being drawn into the
closed vent system, control would be required only when the liquid
fills less than 90 percent of the volume under the landed roof. We are
not proposing to require control of displaced emissions during refill
after these events because the cost to control, considering the
estimated emissions reduction, would not be reasonable except for very
large storage vessels that store highly volatile material. We request
comment on the technical feasibility and cost of this control option.
In particular, we are interested in test data showing the gas flow rate
and inlet mass emissions to a control device that was used as we
proposed; please also provide related supporting information, such as
the diameter of the storage vessel, the height of the landed roof, the
average height of the liquid, the type of material stored and the
pressure drop across the floating roof. We also request comment on
whether the rule should limit the number of days operating in this
manner so that the total controlled emissions do not exceed the
standing idle emissions from one day. We also request comment on
whether any facilities would have no choice but to comply with this
control option because it would not be possible to limit landings to
the situations described in the paragraph above; please provide a
description of any such facilities and explain why limiting landings
would not be possible.
Proposed subpart I would require you to estimate regulated material
standing idle emissions from each landing and to submit the results in
your next periodic report. As in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2,
you would also be required to keep records documenting the start and
end times of all roof landing events. We have determined that
maintaining information on the occurrence, time span and quantity of
standing idle emissions for landings is needed to demonstrate
compliance with the proposed limits on when landings are allowed. This
information will also help inform decisions about where to target
compliance inspections. We request comment on the feasibility and
burden of estimating emissions from landings.
Monitoring and alarm systems. Under the proposed rule, an
inadvertent landing of a floating roof would be a deviation of the
operating requirements described above. To minimize the number of
unintended landings of floating roofs (and the additional emissions
generated as a result), we are proposing to require that you equip each
affected storage vessel with a system that provides a visual or audible
signal when the floating roof is about to land on its legs (or other
support devices). This monitoring is intended to alert you in time to
take action to prevent an inadvertent landing and the resulting
deviation. We are soliciting comment on the prevalence of such
monitoring systems in use with existing storage vessels and the burden
to add them to storage vessels that are not already so equipped. We
estimated the cost to plan, purchase and install the required monitors
to be about $2,000 per storage vessel. We estimated the annual costs,
including costs to estimate emissions for each landing and related
recordkeeping and reporting, to be about $900/year per storage vessel.
These estimates assume each floating roof will be landed an average of
two times per year, and that one of the landings will be inadvertent.
IFR and EFR inspections. The proposed inspection requirements are
consistent with the inspection requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(c) and
(d), except for the six proposed changes discussed below. First, in an
effort to improve clarity, we are proposing to tabulate many of the
inspection and frequency requirements (see Tables 2 and 3 in proposed
subpart I). The intent is not to change the requirements except as
discussed below.
Second, we are proposing to specify how an inspector is to
demonstrate when a gap constitutes an inspection failure for a deck
fitting. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 specifies at 40 CFR
63.1063(d)(1)(v) that a gap of more than \1/8\ inch between any deck
fitting gasket, seal or wiper, and the surface that it is intended to
seal is an inspection failure. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 does
not, however, explicitly specify how an inspector is to determine
whether gaps exceed this amount. Therefore, we are proposing to specify
in proposed 40 CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i) that an inspector must use a \1/8\-
inch diameter probe, and each location where the probe passes freely
constitutes a gap. This procedure is consistent with the currently
specified procedure for monitoring rim seal gaps in EFR tanks.
Third, we are proposing an editorial change to the language from 40
CFR 63.1063(d)(1)(v) that is incorporated in
[[Page 17920]]
40 CFR 65.315(c)(2)(i). In the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2, 40 CFR
63.1063(d)(1)(v) specifies that the gap limit for deck fittings applies
to ``any deck fitting gasket, seal, or wiper.'' The use of the word
``seal'' in this sentence may be misinterpreted as meaning the
provision applies to rim seals because the design requirements for deck
fittings refer only to gaskets and wipers. Therefore, to eliminate
confusion and improve clarity, we are proposing in 40 CFR
65.315(c)(2)(i) to specify that the gap limit applies to each deck
fitting gasket or wiper.
Fourth, to increase compliance flexibility and possibly emissions
reductions, we are proposing to allow optical gas imaging or monitoring
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 as an alternative to
measuring rim seal gaps for EFR and deck fitting gaps for both IFR and
EFR. The monitoring would be required on the same schedule as the
otherwise applicable gap measurement requirements. An inspection
failure would occur if you obtain an instrument reading greater than
500 ppmv when monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7, or when you obtain an image of emissions when using optical gas
imaging. Conditions causing an inspection failure would have to be
repaired. To ensure consistent and reliable results when using optical
gas imaging, we are also proposing two additional requirements: (1)
Optical gas imaging would be allowed only if at least one compound in
the emissions from the storage vessel can be detected by the optical
gas imaging instrument and (2) monitoring would be required in
accordance with a new protocol for optical gas imaging. As discussed in
sections III.A.3 and III.A.4 of this preamble, we are currently
developing a protocol for using optical gas imaging instruments, and we
expect that the protocol will be proposed as appendix K in 40 CFR part
60. We anticipate that compliance with either of the proposed
monitoring alternatives would result in lower emissions than compliance
with the conventional gap measurement requirements because agency
personnel using an optical gas imaging instrument have often seen
images of emissions from seals and fittings that appear to be in good
condition upon visual inspection (see the memorandum titled Leaks
Observed from Fixed Roof and Floating Roof Fittings, in the docket for
proposed subpart I). We have not estimated cost effectiveness to
conduct optical gas imaging or monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, because such monitoring is only an alternative
to gap measurements, not a requirement. However, monitoring costs and
burden for optical gas imaging may be lower if several fittings can be
monitored simultaneously. We request comment on the technical
feasibility, performance and costs of both proposed alternatives to gap
measurement requirements.
Fifth, we are proposing to require inspections of an EFR deck and
fittings annually rather than at least every 10 years, as specified in
the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. The Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2
requires annual secondary seal gap measurements, but complete
inspections of the EFR, rim seals and deck fittings are required only
when the storage vessel is completely emptied and degassed, or every 10
years, whichever occurs first. A commenter on the proposed changes to
storage vessel requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC (73 FR 66694,
November 10, 2008), which would have referenced the Generic MACT for
Tanks Level 2, stated that the annual inspection for EFR should be
expanded to include inspection of the roof and deck fittings as well as
the secondary seal because defects in the roof or fittings are often
clearly visible during the secondary seal inspections (see Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146-0176). Furthermore, the commenter noted that,
under the current rule, it is unclear whether any such defects noted
during the annual inspection are to be repaired, reported or ignored
until the next complete inspection. Upon review, we have determined
that annual inspections of the EFR deck and fittings are reasonable
because: (1) An inspection for other failures can readily be
accomplished each time an inspector is measuring secondary seal gaps;
(2) conducting such failure inspections annually would more closely
align the EFR inspection requirements with the current IFR inspection
requirements; and (3) we estimated the additional burden and costs to
be minimal. Measurement of gaps between deck fitting gaskets and the
surfaces they are intended to seal is not required for IFR. However,
given that EFR have a greater potential for emissions due to wind
effects, we think the minimal additional time and cost to perform such
measurements of EFR fittings is reasonable in light of the potential
for reduced emissions. We estimated the additional labor costs for
visual inspections, measurement of deck fitting gasket gaps and
associated recordkeeping to be about $100/year. The additional burden
was estimated to be about 2 hours per storage vessel.
As noted above, we are proposing to allow monitoring using Method
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 and optical gas imaging as
alternatives to gap measurement requirements. We estimated the costs
and burden to conduct annual monitoring of EFR deck fittings using
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to be about the same as for
annual to measurement of gaps at each fitting because an inspector has
to check each fitting individually in both cases. Theoretically, costs
and burden to conduct optical gas imaging could be slightly less
(assuming the facility is using a camera that has already been
purchased for monitoring equipment leaks) because several emission
points can be monitored simultaneously with an optical gas imaging
instrument, but we assumed the same amount of time because time is
needed to prepare the camera and to obtain images from multiple
locations. See the memorandum titled Survey of Control Technology for
Storage Vessels and Analysis of Impacts for Storage Vessel Control
Options, in the docket for proposed subpart I for additional discussion
of how these costs and burden estimates were developed. We request
comments that assess the effectiveness and burden of the proposed
annual EFR inspections relative to the inspection requirements in the
Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2.
We are also proposing to clarify that repair is required any time a
condition that constitutes an inspection failure is noted, regardless
of whether it was noted as part of a scheduled inspection. Although not
stated explicitly, current rules imply that repair is required any time
an inspection failure is noted because they state that inspections must
be conducted at least once during a specified time period. Any time a
condition that constitutes an inspection failure is noted is
effectively an inspection, whether or not it was scheduled.
Finally, we are proposing changes to clarify the required frequency
of inspections because we received comments on proposed amendments to
40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, that the current requirements could be
subject to different interpretations (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0146-0176). For example, the requirement to conduct inspections ``every
10 years'' could mean in every tenth calendar year, no later than the
date 10 years after the previous inspection or in the same month every
10 years. The same uncertainties also apply to the inspection
requirements that must be
[[Page 17921]]
conducted once per year or every 5 years. We have also been asked when
the inspection must be conducted if the storage vessel is out of
service on the date when the inspection must be completed. To address
these questions, we are proposing to replace the requirements for
inspections at least once per year with a requirement to conduct
inspections at least annually. The proposed General Provisions in 40
CFR part 65, subpart H specify that ``annually'' means once per
calendar year, and successive occurrences of such events must be
separated by at least 120 days. For the inspections that are required
at least every 5 years and every 10 years under the Generic MACT for
Tanks Level 2, we are proposing to require that the inspection
typically must be conducted before the date 5 years (or 10 years) after
the last inspection. The only exception is that an inspection may be
delayed if the storage vessel is out of service on that date, but in
such cases, the inspection must be conducted before the storage vessel
is refilled.
Repairs. The proposed requirements to repair conditions that caused
inspection failures are similar to the requirements at 40 CFR
63.1063(e) in the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2. We are proposing
three changes to clarify the requirements. As discussed above, the
first change clarifies that all conditions that cause an inspection
failure, regardless of whether they were identified during a scheduled
inspection, must be repaired.
The second change would clarify terminology. The applicable repair
requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(e) differ depending on whether or not
the inspection was conducted while the storage vessel was storing
liquid. These requirements could be subject to inconsistent
interpretations because the term ``storing liquid'' is not defined in
the rule. The intent of the language was to apply different procedures
depending on whether or not the storage vessel was completely empty
when the inspection was conducted. The term ``completely empty'' is
defined in the rule. Therefore, rather than define ``storing liquid,''
we are proposing to replace that term with the term ``completely
empty'' to clarify the requirements.
The third change would clarify the recordkeeping requirements when
you use an extension to delay repair or emptying of a storage vessel
beyond 45 days. The current requirements in 40 CFR 63.1063(e) imply
that documentation of extensions is to be prepared before you use an
extension and could be misinterpreted as requiring a request for
approval to use an extension. Section 63.1067 of the Generic MACT for
Tanks Level 2 also specifies that this documentation be submitted in
periodic reports. We have determined that approvals are not necessary;
records that document the type of failure, the reasons why an extension
was needed, the steps taken to either repair or completely empty the
storage vessel during the extension and the date on which repairs were
completed or the storage vessel was completely emptied are sufficient
to demonstrate compliance. Furthermore, requesting approval via a
periodic report is impractical because the schedule of such reports is
unlikely to coincide with many extension periods. Therefore, to clarify
the reporting requirements, the language in the proposed rule differs
from the Generic MACT for Tanks Level 2 in that it clearly requires
records of each decision to use an extension.
5. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for vapor
balancing as a compliance approach for atmospheric storage vessels?
We are proposing that the second approach for atmospheric storage
vessels is vapor balancing (proposed 40 CFR 65.320). Proposed subpart I
would require the same design, operating, monitoring and repair
requirements for the fixed roof and closure devices that would be
required for the closed vent system approach. See section III.B.6 of
this preamble for a discussion of our rationale for these requirements.
The vapor balancing requirements that we are proposing are similar to
requirements in several rules in 40 CFR part 63 (e.g., the MON), except
for the following three changes. First, we are proposing to replace the
requirement to conduct quarterly monitoring of pressure relief valves
on storage vessels using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7,
with a requirement to conduct applicable LDAR requirements for all
equipment in the vapor balancing system. The proposed requirements are
nearly identical to the proposed requirements for closed vent systems,
as described in section III.B.6 of this preamble. The only difference
is that you would have the option to reduce instrument monitoring
frequencies (for types of equipment that must be monitored) consistent
with the alternative for equipment in batch operations in proposed 40
CFR part 65, subpart J. We proposed this difference because it would be
possible to determine the total operating hours for a vapor balancing
system, but not for a closed vent system. We are not proposing to limit
the monitoring requirement to PRD because such monitoring provides
information only for that one piece of equipment. Conducting monitoring
of the entire vapor balancing system while the storage vessel is being
filled provides more information about the integrity of the entire
system, and it is information collected while the system is actually
operating and most likely to be emitting vapors.
The second difference from vapor balancing requirements in current
rules is that the proposed rule would require design, operation,
inspection and repair of openings and closure devices consistent with
the requirements for fixed roofs in storage vessels that are controlled
by routing emissions through a closed vent system to a control device,
as described in section III.B.6 of this preamble. Although current
rules and proposed subpart I require PRD be set at levels to prevent
breathing losses, we determined that additional requirements are needed
to minimize vapor leakage through the roof and fittings regardless of
the method for controlling breathing and working losses.
The third difference from vapor balancing requirements in current
rules is that the proposed rule would specify no requirements for
offsite facilities that reload (and in some cases clean) the transport
vehicle or barge. In current rules, these facilities are subject to the
same control requirements as the facility that has the affected storage
vessel. Both the vapor balancing and closed vent system options were
included in current rules in 40 CFR part 63 because they were
determined to be at least as effective as using floating roofs, which
represented the MACT floors. Based on recent analyses, we determined
that requiring control of offsite facilities as part of a vapor
balancing option results in better overall control than the other
options. Furthermore, the total emissions from a regulated source
implementing vapor balancing and an uncontrolled offsite cleaning/
reloading facility typically are about the same as the total emissions
from both facilities when the regulated source implements the closed
vent system approach. The performance of the closed vent system
approach relative to vapor balancing will vary depending on the
saturation level of the vapor space in the transport vehicle or barge
when unloading of liquid to the storage vessel is complete. If the
organic compound concentration in the vapor space of the transport
vehicle or barge when transfer is complete is approximately the same as
the concentration in the vapor space of the storage vessel, then the
total mass of organic compounds in the transport
[[Page 17922]]
vehicle or barge (in both the vapor space and the liquid heel) would be
the same under both approaches. Under these conditions, the performance
of the two approaches is essentially the same, and control at the
offsite cleaning/reloading facility as part of the vapor balancing
approach is not needed to achieve the same level of control as the
closed vent system approach. See the memorandum titled Vapor Balancing
Emissions Estimates for Storage Vessels, in the docket for proposed
subpart I for example calculations.
Another issue with the vapor balancing approach, as specified in
current rules, is that it imposes a significant burden on the offsite
facilities (assuming these facilities are not required to control
transfer operations emissions under a rule that currently applies to
their source category). Furthermore, because facilities outside the
United States are not required to comply with this rule, a regulated
source would not be allowed to use the vapor balancing approach if the
transport vehicle is cleaned outside of the United States. Therefore,
we have decided not to include control requirements for offsite
facilities in proposed subpart I because we have determined that such
requirements result in greater overall emissions reductions than other
storage vessel control approaches. This additional control is not
needed to meet regulatory requirements such as MACT in current rules
because the performance of vapor balancing without offsite control is
at least equivalent to the performance of other control approaches,
including those that represent MACT in current rules. As a result, the
offsite control requirement also imposes an unnecessary burden on the
offsite facilities. Furthermore, the vapor balancing approach without
offsite controls imposes clearly enforceable requirements on the
regulated facility. We request comment on the differences between the
proposed vapor balancing requirements and the vapor balancing
requirements in current rules. In particular, we are interested in
whether the proposed lack of requirements for offsite facilities could
result in significantly higher total emissions under some conditions.
We are also interested in test data or theoretical calculations of the
organic compound saturation level or concentration in the vapor space
of freely vented transport vehicles at the time when unloading of
various liquids is complete.
6. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control of
atmospheric storage vessels when routing emissions through a closed
vent system to a control device?
As discussed in section III.A.5 of this preamble, the proposed
requirements are based on a combination of the procedures specified in
40 CFR part 65, subpart M and several additional requirements. As
discussed in section V.B of this preamble, we have structured the
proposed requirements in subpart M to be applicable to any emissions
stream that is controlled by routing through a closed vent system to a
control device. Referencing these provisions from proposed subpart I
promotes consistency for all emissions streams that are routed through
a closed vent system to a control device. It is also intended to
simplify and reduce the burden of compliance and reduce the potential
for inadvertent errors. However, we are also proposing several
additional requirements to ensure appropriate control for storage
vessels.
In addition to the proposed requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart
M, we are proposing to require design and operation of the fixed roof
and closure devices consistent with the proposed requirements for fixed
roof storage vessels, as discussed in section III.B.3 of this preamble,
except that breathing and working losses would have to be controlled
rather than vented to the atmosphere. We are also proposing to require
the same type of monitoring and repair of all potential sources of
vapor leakage from the fixed roof and closure devices, as discussed in
section III.B.3 of this preamble. We request comment on whether the
proposed monitoring frequencies are reasonable and if any changes to
operating procedures for the monitoring devices would ensure that the
alternative monitoring methods provide similar results.
For equipment in a closed vent system, proposed 40 CFR part 65,
subpart M references the compliance requirements in proposed 40 CFR
part 65, subpart J. However, in subpart I we are proposing to reference
only the bypass line requirements in proposed subpart M and reference
directly the applicable equipment leak requirements in proposed subpart
J. We selected this approach to specify more easily that certain
options in proposed subpart J do not apply to equipment in a closed
vent system that conveys emissions from a regulated storage vessel.
Specifically, the alternative monitoring frequency requirements for
equipment in batch operations would not be allowed for equipment in
such closed vent systems because the closed vent system must be in
service continuously. Similarly, the provision that specifies sensory
monitoring for equipment in service less than 300 hr/yr would not be
allowed for equipment in such closed vent systems because determining
the amount of time the system actually is conveying emissions is not
practical.
The applicable requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J differ
depending on whether the equipment is in regulated material service or
if it contains or contacts fluid that contains regulated material at
levels below the regulated material service threshold. Current rules
typically require sensory monitoring of closed vent systems (only
closed vent systems constructed of ductwork are subject to monitoring
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7). We are proposing
instrument monitoring of closed vent systems in regulated material
service to be consistent with the requirements for process lines that
convey gaseous materials and to ensure that the emission streams reach
the control device so that the required level of control is met. As an
alternative to using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, we are
proposing to allow monitoring using an optical gas imaging device
(after the protocol is promulgated, as discussed in section III.A.3 of
this preamble), provided at least one compound in the emissions can be
detected by the optical gas imaging instrument.
The proposed rule also specifies that all equipment in sections of
closed vent systems that convey emissions from storage vessels that
meet the thresholds for control (i.e., the thresholds specified in
Table 1 of this preamble) are in regulated material service; no
additional determination of the composition of gas streams in the
closed vent system is required. This approach is being proposed because
it provides an easy way for determining when equipment is in regulated
material service and because the concentration of organic compounds in
vapor that is in equilibrium with a liquid that has a vapor pressure of
0.75 psia (the minimum threshold for control) is approximately 50,000
ppmv, which after conversion to a weight basis, is comparable to or
lower than typical 5 percent or 10 percent by weight thresholds in
definitions of ``in organic HAP service'' or ``in VOC service'' in
current rules. We request comment on other approaches that can
accurately determine whether equipment is in regulated material service
without imposing unreasonable burden.
[[Page 17923]]
Current rules for storage vessels generally require non-flare
control devices to reduce organic compound emissions by at least 95
percent or to an outlet concentration of regulated material less than
20 ppmv. They also require at least a 99-percent reduction or outlet
concentration less than 20 ppmv for acid gases or halogen atoms (the
acid gases may be part of the emission stream directly from the storage
vessel, or they may be generated by burning halogenated organic
compounds in combustion control devices). These levels are achievable
by storage vessels storing a wide range of materials in a wide range of
source categories, and they are at least equivalent to the reductions
that are achieved when using floating roofs. Thus, we are proposing to
specify these required control levels in proposed subpart I rather than
in each of the individual referencing subparts, thereby improving
consistency and simplifying the referencing subparts. The use of flares
to control organic emissions from storage vessels is another option
that would be allowed in proposed subpart I; all requirements for
flares are covered in 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A.
Proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M specifies that control
performance requirements will be specified in referencing subparts.
Because proposed subpart I specifies the required reductions or outlet
concentrations for non-flare control devices used to control emissions
from storage vessels, subpart I (rather than the rule that references
subpart I) would be the referencing subpart for the purpose of
complying with proposed subpart M. Therefore, subpart I must specify
the provisions for initial compliance determinations (i.e., design
evaluation or performance test), if applicable for storage vessels. We
determined that design evaluations provide sufficiently accurate
results for demonstrating compliance with the reductions required for
storage vessels. Thus, we are proposing to specify in subpart I that
initial compliance with requirements for non-flare control devices that
control emissions from storage vessels may be demonstrated using a
design evaluation instead of a performance test, which is the default
in subpart M. However, any control devices that control other emissions
(e.g., process vents) in addition to storage vessel emissions, may
still be required to conduct a performance test instead of a design
evaluation, if another subpart references subpart M for the same
control device.
As in current rules, we are proposing to require different
standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the control
device. We are not proposing to require compliance with the same
standard at all times because the cost of such a requirement would be
unreasonable. Instead, we are proposing to prohibit the addition of
material to the storage vessel during periods of planned routine
maintenance and to limit the time of planned routine maintenance to
less than 360 hr/yr. If you need more than 240 hr/yr, you would be
required to keep a record documenting why 240 hours is insufficient and
the steps you took to minimize the additional time for planned routine
maintenance. In analyses for current rules, 240 hours has been
determined as sufficient for most control device rebuilds.
7. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control of
atmospheric storage vessels when routing emissions to a fuel gas
system?
For fuel gas systems that control emissions from storage vessels,
proposed subpart I references the fuel gas system requirements in
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M and specifies a few additional
requirements to ensure appropriate control for storage vessels. See
section V.B.4 of this preamble for a discussion of the requirements in
subpart M for fuel gas systems. Proposed subpart I also would require
the same design operating, monitoring and repair requirements for the
fixed roof and closure devices that would be required for the closed
vent system approach. See section III.B.6 of this preamble for a
discussion of our rationale for these requirements. Proposed subpart I
also would require compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J
for the equipment in the fuel gas system. As for the closed vent system
approach, all equipment in sections of a fuel gas system that convey
emissions from an affected storage vessel are in regulated material
service and subject to the monitoring and other LDAR requirements for
equipment in regulated material service. See section III.B.6 of this
preamble for a discussion of the rationale for these requirements.
8. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control for
pressure vessels?
A pressure vessel is defined in the Uniform Standards as a storage
vessel that is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a result of
compression of the vapor headspace in the vessel during filling of the
vessel. We are proposing standards for all pressure vessels that
contain any regulated material. We are not proposing thresholds for the
following reasons. First, materials stored in a pressure vessel are
likely to be highly volatile; thus, a low vapor pressure threshold
would have little or no impact. Second, we do not expect the operating
pressure or frequency of leaks to vary with the size of the storage
vessel. Thus, the emissions for the same emission pathway would be the
same regardless of the size of the storage vessel. Third, the fittings
on the pressure vessel are comparable to the types of equipment (and in
the same service as equipment) that would be subject to monitoring
under proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J.
The proposed requirements for pressure vessels are to equip each
opening with a closure device, operate without emissions to the
atmosphere at any time, monitor annually all potential leak interfaces
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 (or semiannually when
using optical gas imaging), estimate and report emissions from periods
when instrument readings exceed 500 ppmv or an image is detected and
route purge streams to a control device. Closure devices are an
operational necessity for pressure vessels, and they prevent emissions
as well. We are proposing periodic monitoring requirements as a means
to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to operate without
emissions to the atmosphere. We have determined that estimating and
reporting emissions is needed to help inform decisions about where to
target compliance inspections and to ensure that the pressure vessels
are properly operating with no vents to the atmosphere. The burden to
conduct monitoring and associated recordkeeping and reporting is
estimated to be about 2 hr/yr per storage vessel, at a cost of about
$170/year for monitoring with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7. The burden is estimated to be about 3.5 hr/yr at a cost of about
$260/year for monitoring with an optical gas imaging instrument. The
differences in the proposed Uniform Standards are due primarily to the
different monitoring frequencies.
We are proposing to include an alternative to the requirement of
maintaining a closed system at all times. This alternative would allow
you to purge inert materials that build up in the pressure vessel,
provided the purge stream is routed through a closed vent system to a
control device that achieves the same performance that is being
proposed for atmospheric storage vessels (i.e., reductions of at least
95 percent or to less than 20 ppmv or routed to a flare that meets the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.11(b)). This
[[Page 17924]]
provision is consistent with an option for controlling emissions from
pressure vessels that manage hazardous waste and are subject to the
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities in 40 CFR 264.1084 and 40 CFR
265.1085. We are proposing this option in subpart I because it is
consistent with and ensures control comparable to proposed requirements
for atmospheric storage vessels.
9. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for overfill
detection and alarms?
We are proposing to require you to equip each storage vessel with
an overfill detection sensor. A consortium of international oil
companies conducted a study that concluded 11 percent of sunken-roof
accidents were caused by overfilling the storage vessel (see 2008
American Petroleum Institute (API) AST Conference, in the docket for
proposed subpart I). According to instrumentation industry
representatives, overfill detection systems are currently available,
and storage vessels designed to American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) standards must be equipped with such monitoring and
alarm systems. The proposed overfill monitoring requirement is intended
to alert you to a potential overfill so that you can take action to
prevent the overfill and, thus, avoid a deviation of design
requirements. We estimated the average cost to plan, purchase and
install the required monitor and alarm to be about $1,900 per storage
vessel. We estimated the average annual cost of the proposed
requirement, including recordkeeping and reporting, to be about $400/
year per storage vessel. We expect that this requirement will add
little burden because we understand that most storage vessels are
already equipped with overfill monitoring and alarm systems. Therefore,
we request comment with descriptions of any types of affected storage
vessels that are not already equipped with overfill protection systems.
We also request comment on whether additional design or operational
requirements are needed to ensure successful implementation and
enforcement of the proposed overfill monitoring requirement, and
whether other types of monitoring could better prevent overfill and the
resulting emissions.
10. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control of
transfer operations to load transport vehicles?
In the survey of technology for control of transfer operations that
involve loading transport vehicles, we identified several compliance
approaches. The most common is submerged loading (or bottom loading).
We identified this compliance approach as Control Option TR1. We also
identified four additional compliance approaches that are more
effective than submerged loading alone: (1) Control Option TR2 is to
route displaced emissions through a closed vent system to a flare; (2)
Control Option TR3 is to route displaced emissions through a closed
vent system to a control device that reduces regulated organic
emissions by at least 98 percent or to less than 20 ppmv; (3) Control
Option TR4 is to vapor balance the displaced emissions back to the
storage vessel from which the transport vehicle is being loaded; and
(4) Control Option TR5 is to route displaced emissions to a fuel gas
system.
We estimated impacts only for Control Options TR1 and TR2. We did
not estimate impacts for the other compliance approaches for several
reasons. We did not estimate costs for Control Option TR3 because, as
part of the analysis for the OLD NESHAP, we determined that flares are
the most common and least costly control device for transfer racks. See
the memorandum titled Environmental and Cost Impacts of the Proposed
OLD NESHAP, in docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138-0053 for the flare
analysis. Although vapor balancing may be less costly than control
using a flare in some cases, we did not estimate impacts for Control
Option TR4 because vapor balancing requires no venting from the system
while a transfer is occurring. This will require pressure settings in
the system that may not be feasible for some atmospheric storage
vessels. We also did not estimate impacts for Control Option TR5
because not all facilities have or could make use of a fuel gas system,
and it would be impractical to install a fuel gas system to handle
transfer emissions alone.
Regardless of the control option, vapor tightness testing of the
transport vehicle is an approach for ensuring that emissions are
conveyed to the intended destination. Finally, LDAR for the equipment
in the transfer rack is an approach for controlling fugitive emissions
from the transfer rack itself. Each of the control options and other
compliance approaches and how they have been incorporated into proposed
subpart I are discussed in the sections below.
Control Option TR1. According to AP-42 Chapter 5.2, splash loading
results in a vapor-space saturation factor of 1.45, and submerged
loading results in a saturation factor of 0.6. Reducing the saturation
factor also reduces the concentration of organic compounds in the gases
that are displaced when loading the transport vehicle. Thus, Control
Option TR1 reduces transfer emissions by an estimated 60 percent
relative to splash loading. As shown in Table 7 of this preamble, the
costs for Control Option TR1 in light of the estimated emissions
reductions also are reasonable for a wide range of transfer throughputs
and average vapor pressures. In many cases, the switch to submerged
loading would result in a cost savings. Thus, we are proposing that all
transfers of regulated material to transport vehicles be conducted
using submerged (or bottom) loading.
Table 7--Estimated Impacts for Submerged Loading of Transport Vehicles
[Control option TR1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total transfer
throughput at Emission Incremental
Average vapor pressure of facility Number of Total annual reduction \a\ cost
transferred material (psia) (million gal/ loading arms costs ($/yr) (tpy) effectiveness
yr) \a\ ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.08.......................... 2 1 710 0.13 5,400
0.08.......................... 21 4 2,100 1.4 1,500
0.08.......................... 45 12 7,300 2.9 2,500
1............................. 2 1 190 1.6 100
1............................. 21 4 (12,100) 17 (710)
1............................. 45 6 (28,000) 37 (770)
3............................. 2 2 (2,700) 4.9 (560)
3............................. 21 4 (43,000) 51 (840)
[[Page 17925]]
3............................. 45 6 (94,000) 110 (860)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Relative to uncontrolled (i.e., splash loading).
The emissions estimates for the model facilities in Table 7 of this
preamble were estimated using procedures in AP-42 Chapter 5.2, assuming
the average transfer temperature is 60[emsp14][deg]Farenheit and the
average vapor molecular weight of transferred materials is 80. The
total capital investment was scaled from a quote for converting a rack
that has six arms from splash loading to submerged loading; this quote
was provided by an industry trade association during development of the
gasoline distribution area source rule (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0406-0060). Annual costs were developed for operation, maintenance
and indirect costs such as capital recovery. We also included a product
recovery credit for the emissions prevented by the change in loading
procedures. See the memorandum titled Survey of Control Technology for
Transfer Operations and Analysis of Impacts for Transfer Operation
Control Options, in the docket for proposed subpart I for additional
information regarding the development of these impacts.
Control Option TR2. In the impacts analysis for Control Option TR2,
we evaluated the impacts for model facilities similar to those that we
used in the analysis of submerged loading impacts. The resulting annual
costs, emission reductions and incremental cost effectiveness relative
to Control Option TR1 are shown in Table 8 of this preamble. See the
memorandum titled Survey of Control Technology for Transfer Operations
and Analysis of Impacts for Transfer Operation Control Options, in the
docket for proposed subpart I for a more detailed discussion of how the
impacts were developed.
Table 8--Estimated Impacts To Control Emissions From Loading of Transport Vehicles Using a Closed Vent System
and Flare
[Control option TR2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average vapor
pressure of Emission Incremental cost
Total transfer throughput at transferred Number of Total annual reduction \a\ effectiveness
facility (million gal/yr) material loading arms costs ($/yr) (tpy) \a\ ($/ton)
(psia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15........................... 1 6 94,000 8.5 11,100
3 2 79,000 25.4 3,100
6 6 94,000 50.7 1,900
25........................... 1 10 116,000 14.1 8,200
3 8 104,000 42.3 2,500
6 8 104,000 84.5 1,200
45........................... 1 6 94,000 25.4 3,700
3 6 94,000 76.1 1,200
6 12 131,000 152 860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Relative to submerged loading.
Based on the results in Table 8 of this preamble, we determined
that the costs of Control Option TR2 are reasonable when a facility
transfers more than 35 million gal/yr of liquids that contain regulated
material, and the weighted-average vapor pressure of the transferred
liquids is a little over 3 psia. Using the monthly temperature data in
AP-42 Chapter 7.1 to calculate vapor pressures for several cities shows
the average true vapor pressure often is about 80 percent of the MTVP.
Thus, we are proposing to require control of displaced emissions from
transport vehicle loading at facilities that meet thresholds of at
least 35 million gal/yr throughput and a weighted average MTVP of at
least 4 psia.
As for storage vessels, some current rules specify thresholds for
transfer operation control that are more stringent than the thresholds
that we determined to be cost effective. For transfer operations, we
decided not to propose any of the thresholds from current rules because
few current rules require control of transfer operations, and the
thresholds in these rules vary. We also have not conducted regulatory
analyses for source categories that do not have control requirements
for transfer operations. Therefore, we do not know what thresholds
would be appropriate in those rules if they were to be amended to
include requirements for transfer operations. At a minimum, the current
analysis identifies the cost-effective thresholds that could be used as
a starting point in more detailed analysis of requirements on a source
category-specific basis.
In contrast to some current rules (e.g., the HON), the proposed
vapor pressure threshold is based on the MTVP instead of average vapor
pressure. This is intended to reduce the compliance burden. If the
temperature of the transferred material varies over the year, then
significant calculations and recordkeeping is needed to document the
vapor pressure for each transfer and the average over all transfers
during the year. The burden grows as the number of materials
transferred increases. We recognize that even determining the
throughput-weighted MTVP could be burdensome for a rack that transfers
numerous regulated materials. It also
[[Page 17926]]
requires you to project the total amount of various materials that you
expect to transfer during the year so that you can determine whether
there is a chance that you would exceed the thresholds. Basing the
control threshold only on throughput as in some rules (e.g., the OLD
NESHAP) would be less burdensome, but control would be required
regardless of the material transferred. Therefore, we request comment
on the proposed thresholds for control and suggestions for alternative
thresholds that would impose less compliance burden while still
ensuring control of emissions when the cost of such control is
reasonable.
Other compliance approaches. We are proposing to include several
alternative compliance options with which you may elect to comply
instead of using a flare. These alternatives are based on Control
Options TR3, TR4 and TR5, and they are being included because their
performance is the same as or possibly marginally better than the
performance obtained by routing emissions through a closed vent system
to a flare. We are proposing compliance procedures based on Control
Options TR3 and TR5 that are the same as for the closed vent system and
fuel gas system approaches for control of storage vessel emissions,
except that monitoring or inspections would be required while a
transport vehicle is being filled with regulated material. As in the
requirements for storage vessels, we are proposing to allow you to
demonstrate initial compliance with an emission limit using either a
design evaluation or performance test regardless of the throughput. We
are proposing this approach to minimize the compliance burden and
because we have determined a design evaluation is sufficient given the
relatively low level of emissions from transfer operations relative to
other emission sources.
The option based on Control Option TR4 is similar to the vapor
balancing approach in the OLD NESHAP and other rules in that it
includes both design requirements and inspection requirements (e.g.,
see 40 CFR 63.2346 and Tables 7 and 10 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE). Unlike current rules, however, we are also proposing to require
the following specific design elements and operating procedures: (1)
The vapor balancing system must be designed to prevent any regulated
material vapors collected at one transfer rack from passing to another
transfer rack; (2) all vapor connections in the system must be equipped
with closures that seal upon disconnect; and (3) PRD in the system must
remain closed while regulated material is loaded in the transport
vehicle. Meeting these requirements will help ensure that the vapors
displaced from loading transport vehicles with regulated materials are
returned to the storage tank from which the liquids being loaded
originated. The second and third requirements also are consistent with
proposed requirements for vapor balancing systems to control emissions
from storage vessels. Finally, we are proposing to require LDAR of
equipment in the vapor balancing system consistent with the proposed
requirements for equipment in closed vent systems. The vapor balancing
system monitoring requirements vary widely in current rules. For
example, no monitoring requirement is specified in the MON; the HON
requires either annual visual inspections or annual monitoring using
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, depending on whether the
system is constructed of hard-piping or ductwork; and the OLD NESHAP
requires quarterly monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7. We are proposing requirements consistent with those for
closed vent systems to streamline the compliance procedures and because
a vapor balancing system serves essentially the same purpose as a
closed vent system.
Transport vehicle tightness testing. As part of the compliance
approaches that are based on Control Options TR2, TR3, TR4 and TR5, you
would be required to transfer regulated materials only to transport
vehicles that are determined to be vapor tight. We are proposing the
vapor tightness requirement for transport vehicles that are loaded at
affected transfer racks to ensure that the requirement to collect and
convey emissions to control during transfer operations is effective.
These requirements have the added benefit of minimizing emissions while
the vehicle is in transport as well. To be considered vapor tight, each
transport vehicle that is loaded with material that has a MTVP greater
than 4 psia would be required to pass an annual vapor tightness test
conducted using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. All other
transport vehicles would be required to have a current certification in
accordance with DOT pressure test requirements in 49 CFR part 180 for
cargo tanks or 49 CFR 173.31 for tank cars. These proposed requirements
are similar to requirements in several current rules. For example,
several gasoline distribution rules require testing of gasoline
transport vehicles using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8
(e.g., 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart R). The
OLD NESHAP requires EPA Method 27 testing for transport vehicles that
are equipped with vapor-collection equipment, and other transport
vehicles must meet the DOT certification requirements. In the preamble
to the proposed OLD NESHAP, we noted that tank trucks in chemical
service typically are not equipped with vapor-collection equipment (63
FR 15682, April 2, 2002). Although we are uncertain whether vapor-
collection equipment is now more common on trucks used to transport
chemicals than it was 10 years ago, we think it is appropriate that all
vehicles used to transport materials with vapor pressure comparable to
the vapor pressure of gasoline should be subject to the same vapor
tightness requirements. The proposed MTVP threshold was set at 4 psia
because this is about the minimum MTVP for any grade of gasoline. We
request comment on the burden and costs of this proposed requirement to
conduct vapor-tightness testing using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8. For example, we are interested in estimates of the number
of vehicles that would have to be retrofitted with vapor-collection
equipment, the costs of such retrofits and the fraction of the volume
transported in such vehicles that exceeds the 4-psia threshold. In
addition, since the MTVP of a given material varies depending on
location, we request comment on whether a threshold based on another
parameter would be easier to implement.
Finally, as in current rules, you would be required to take actions
to assure that your closed vent system, vapor balancing system or fuel
gas system is connected to the transport vehicle's vapor-collection
equipment when regulated material is transferred. These requirements
are intended to ensure that the displaced emissions are routed to the
required control. Examples of actions to satisfy this requirement
include training drivers in the hookup procedures and posting visible
reminder signs at the affected transfer racks.
11. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for control of
transfer operations to load containers?
In the survey of technology of emission controls for transfer racks
that are used to load containers, we identified several control
approaches that have each been included in one or more current rules.
For example, one approach is to use controls such as submerged loading
or fitted openings in conjunction with transfer line purging. We also
identified operational practices to control emissions from containers
that are storing transferred regulated
[[Page 17927]]
material (e.g., maintaining covers and other closure devices in the
closed position except when access to the container is necessary). We
also identified three more effective compliance approaches: (1) Vapor
balance displaced emissions back to a storage vessel; (2) locate the
transfer rack inside an enclosure that meets the requirements for a
Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B,
and exhaust the enclosure through a closed vent system to a control
device; and (3) vent displaced emissions from the container itself
through a closed vent system to a control device. In addition, vapor
tightness testing can be conducted on containers, like transport
vehicles.
For the impacts analysis, we evaluated two control options: Control
Option TR6, which combines submerged fill with the operational
practices of using closure devices on stored containers and Control
Option TR7, which consists of venting displaced emissions through a
closed vent system to a flare. We did not estimate impacts for the
enclosure approach (Control Option TR8) because costs for the enclosure
are expected to result in higher total costs than for Control Option
TR7, and the control device might have to be larger to handle the
airflow needed to meet the requirements in 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B.
We did not estimate impacts for the vapor balancing approach (Control
Option TR9) because we are not aware of any facility that is using this
approach, and as with storage vessels, vapor balancing may not be
feasible at all facilities due to allowable pressure limits for safe
operation.
The impacts of Control Options TR6 and TR7 for a series of model
transfer racks are presented in Table 9 of this preamble. The models
cover a range of typical throughputs as reported by facilities that
responded to an information collection request (ICR) for OLD operations
(see the memorandum titled Model Plants for the OLD Source Category, in
docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138-0052 for site-specific throughputs).
The models also span a wide range of average vapor pressures.
Table 9--Estimated Impacts of Control Options TR6 and TR7 for Loading Containers at a Transfer Rack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
transfer Total
throughput annual Emission Cost
Average Reid vapor pressure of transferred material (psia) at facility costs ($/ reduction effectiveness
(million yr) (tpy) \a\ ($/ton)
gal/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Option TR6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5....................................................... 0.1 700 0.016 43,000
1.5....................................................... 5 (13) 0.81 (16)
3.37...................................................... 0.1 680 0.036 19,000
3.37...................................................... 5 (920) 1.8 (510)
8......................................................... 0.1 630 0.12 5,500
8......................................................... 5 (3,200) 0.016 (550)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Option TR7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5....................................................... 0.1 81,000 0.050 2,400,000
1.5....................................................... 5 81,000 2.5 47,000
3.37...................................................... 0.1 81,000 0.11 1,100,000
3.37...................................................... 5 81,000 5.6 21,000
8......................................................... 0.1 81,000 0.36 330,000
8......................................................... 5 81,000 18 6,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Relative to uncontrolled for Control Option TR6 and relative to Control Option TR6 for Control Option TR7.
Capital costs for submerged fill were estimated assuming the
capital costs for retrofitting one station that loads containers are
about half of the costs for retrofitting one arm that loads transport
vehicles. Annual costs for submerged fill were estimated using the same
procedures as in the analysis for Control Option TR1. Costs for the
closed vent and flare system were scaled from costs developed from
vendor information in the analysis for the OLD analysis (see docket
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0138-0053).
Uncontrolled emissions were estimated using two approaches. One
approach was to use the vehicle refueling equation presented in AP-42
chapter 5.2. This approach was used in the analysis for the OLD NESHAP
because surveyed OLD facilities were using nozzles like those used at
gasoline service stations. A problem with this approach is that it is
not reliable at low vapor pressures. Specifically, as the vapor
pressure approaches zero, the emissions are estimated to be negative.
Therefore, we also estimated emissions using a second approach, which
was to use the transfer rack loss equation in AP-42 chapter 5.2 (i.e.,
the same approach that we used to estimate emissions from transport
vehicles), but with one modification. It is not clear that the splash-
loading factor in AP-42 is applicable for container loading given the
much lower fill rate of containers. Therefore, we selected a saturation
factor (i.e., 0.88) that, when used in the transfer rack loss equation,
produced the same emissions as the vehicle refueling equation when the
Reid vapor pressure of transferred material is 3.37 psia (this is the
vapor pressure used for models in the OLD analysis). Using this factor
gave higher emissions estimates than the vapor refueling equation for
Reid vapor pressures lower than 3.37 psia, and it gave higher emissions
for Reid vapor pressures higher than 3.37 psia. To estimate controlled
emissions for Control Option TR6, we assumed the saturation factor
would be 0.6, as in the analysis for Control Option TR1. Thus, we
assumed Control Option TR6 reduces emissions by 32 percent ([0.88 -
0.6]/[0.88] = 0.32). Controlled emissions for Control Option TR7 were
assumed to be 2 percent of the emissions for Control Option TR6.
The results of this analysis show the cost impacts for Control
Option TR6 are reasonable for throughputs greater than about 1 million
gal/yr over the range of vapor pressures specified for the model
transfer racks. The analysis also shows
[[Page 17928]]
the cost impacts of Control Option TR7 are unreasonable for all of the
same model transfer racks. Thus, for transfer operations that include
the loading of regulated material into containers, we are proposing
that the Uniform Standards require submerged loading. In addition, when
a loaded container contains regulated material and is maintained on
site, all openings in the containers would have to be equipped with
covers and closure devices, which you would have to maintain in the
closed position except when access to the container is necessary (e.g.,
for adding or removing material, sampling or cleaning).
We are also proposing other options that have equal or better
performance that may be used instead of submerged loading, or that may
be required, if justified, by referencing subparts. These other options
include using fitted openings in conjunction with transfer line
purging, which is specified in the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart R). We are also proposing requirements for compliance
approaches that are based on Control Options TR8 and TR9. These
proposed requirements are a consolidated and streamlined version of the
requirements in the Generic MACT for Containers and OLD NESHAP. If you
use a closed vent system and control device, the control device would
be required to reduce regulated material emissions by 95 percent, as in
current rules. Inspection requirements for both closed vent systems and
vapor balancing systems would be the same as for such systems used to
convey emissions from loading of transport vehicles.
If you load a container 55 gallons or larger with material that has
a MTVP greater than 4 psia and use the container for onsite storage of
that material, then the container would be subject to either annual
vapor tightness testing in accordance with Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-8, or annual monitoring of potential leak interfaces using
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. The leak definition for the
EPA Method 21 testing would be 500 ppmv. These testing or monitoring
requirements are needed to demonstrate that transferred materials with
high vapor pressures are not emitted from storage. We request comment
on the burden and costs of this proposed requirement to conduct vapor-
tightness testing using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. For
example, we are interested in estimates of the number of containers
that would have to be retrofitted with vapor-collection equipment, the
costs of such retrofits and the fraction of the volume stored in such
containers that exceeds the 4-psia threshold. In addition, since the
MTVP of a given material varies, depending on location, we request
comment on whether a threshold based on another parameter would be
easier to implement.
12. How did the EPA determine the definitions of terms used in proposed
subpart I?
As discussed in section VI.B.16 of this preamble, all definitions
are located in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H. Most of the
definitions that are used in proposed subpart I are unchanged from the
definitions in current rules, such as 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW and
subpart EEEE. We are also proposing definitions for the terms
``barge,'' ``fittings'' and ``pressure vessel,'' which are not defined
in current rules. The vapor balancing requirements for storage vessels
specify that emissions from the storage vessel may be vapor balanced to
a barge that is providing the liquid to fill the storage vessel. To
clarify what type of vessel qualifies as a barge, we are proposing to
define a barge as ``any vessel that transports regulated material
liquids in bulk on inland waterways or at sea.''
We are proposing to add a definition for the term ``storage
capacity.'' This term is intended to take the place of the term
``capacity'' that is defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. We are
proposing the change to avoid possible confusion because the term
capacity is also used in a different context in proposed 40 CFR part
65, subpart M. We are also modifying the definition to specify that
storage capacity of a flat-bottomed storage vessel is determined by
multiplying the internal cross-sectional area of the storage vessel by
the internal height of the shell, but the calculation for storage
vessels with a sloped bottom or cone-up or cone-down bottoms need to be
adjusted to account for the fact that the floor is not flat.
We are proposing to include a definition for ``automatic bleeder
vent (vacuum breaker vent).'' Vacuum breaker vents equalize the
pressure across a landed floating roof when liquid is either being
withdrawn or added below the landed roof. Current rules do not include
a definition for such devices, but historically vacuum breaker devices
have been a covered well opening with a leg attached to the underside
of the cover. When the roof lands, the leg opens the vent by lifting
the cover off the well. Recently, we learned of a new design that is
activated by pressure or vacuum differences across the roof.
Theoretical calculations have shown such vents should open only while
the roof is landed, not while it is floating. Based on this analysis,
we have decided to include both mechanically activated and pressure/
vacuum activated devices in the proposed definition of ``automatic
bleeder vent (vacuum breaker vent).'' We request additional
information, in particular, any test data that either supports or
contradicts the theoretical analysis.
Finally, we are proposing to use a new definition of ``maximum true
vapor pressure'' that excludes the list of methods that may be used to
determine MTVP. In proposed subpart I, this list has been moved to 40
CFR 65.306. We also added a new method to the list: Test Method for
Vapor Pressure of Reactive Organic Compounds in Heavy Crude Oil Using
Gas Chromatography. This method was developed because existing methods
cannot be applied to heavy crude oils. We moved the list of methods to
40 CFR 65.306 because we are also proposing three additional changes to
the procedures for determining MTVP that cannot be readily included in
a definition. First, we are proposing to require testing to determine
MTVP of mixtures (such as petroleum liquids) and to allow information
from reference texts to be used only for pure compounds. We are
proposing this change because we are concerned that the compositions of
mixtures (e.g., crude oils) vary considerably depending on their source
and how they are handled before storage. Thus, average or generic
values for a class of materials do not necessarily accurately represent
the characteristics of the material in each storage vessel. Second, we
are proposing to require new determinations each time a storage vessel
is filled with a different type of material. This is an implied
requirement in current rules, but this change clearly states the
requirement. Third, because the composition of mixtures can vary (as
noted above), we are proposing to require redetermination of the MTVP
annually if stored materials are mixtures and previous testing has
determined the MTVP is below the thresholds for control, as specified
in Table 1 of proposed subpart I (and Table 1 of this preamble).
IV. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National
Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Subpart J
A. Summary
We are proposing new Uniform Standards for control of emissions
from equipment leaks. These Uniform Standards for equipment leaks would
[[Page 17929]]
apply only to equipment that is subject to a regulation that references
provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, for control of equipment
leaks. We would only issue regulations that reference provisions of 40
CFR part 65, subpart J, once we have determined that those provisions
meet applicable statutory requirements for a particular source category
(e.g., MACT, AMOS, BSER).
In section IV of this preamble, the term ``we'' refers to the EPA
and the term ``you'' refers to owners and operators affected by the
proposed standards. Section IV.A.1 of this preamble identifies the
regulated sources under the proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J.
Sections IV.A.2 through 4 of this preamble summarize the proposed
standards for equipment leaks. Section IV.A.5 of this preamble
summarizes the proposed standards for using an optical gas imaging
instrument to detect leaks. Section IV.A.6 of this preamble summarizes
the notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Section
IV.B of this preamble presents the rationale behind the development of
the proposed standards.
1. What parts of my plant are affected by the proposed rule?
The proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J includes requirements for
equipment in process units, closed vent systems and fuel gas systems,
including valves, pumps, connectors, agitators, PRD, compressors,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves and lines,
instrumentation systems and any other types of equipment specified by
the referencing subpart that contain or contact regulated material (as
defined by the referencing subpart). This subpart also includes
requirements for closed-purge and closed-loop systems used to control
emissions from certain types of equipment. Proposed 40 CFR part 65,
subpart J does not include applicability provisions; instead, the
referencing subpart would define what equipment in that source category
is subject to the provisions of the Uniform Standards.
2. What are the proposed general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Your equipment would be subject to some or all of the requirements
of 40 CFR part 65, subpart J when another subpart references the use of
provisions of subpart J for air emission control. In addition, you
would be required to meet the general provisions applicable to part 65
(i.e., subpart H of 40 CFR part 65) and the general provisions
applicable to the referencing subpart (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR parts
60, 61 or 63).
3. What are the types of techniques we are proposing to reduce
emissions from equipment leaks?
Equipment leak standards consist of techniques to detect leaks
based on sensory inspections, instrument monitoring or use of an
optical gas imaging instrument, as applicable. Equipment design
standards specify requirements regarding the use, design or operation
of the equipment. Each of these techniques is summarized in this
section.
Sensory monitoring. Sensory monitoring includes visual, audible,
olfactory or any other sensory detection method used to determine a
potential leak to the atmosphere. If you found indications of a
potential leak, you would be required either to: (1) Repair the
equipment such that the indications of a potential leak to the
atmosphere are no longer evident; (2) determine that no bubbles are
observed at potential leak sites during a leak check using a soap
solution; or (3) conduct instrument monitoring as described in the next
paragraph to determine if the instrument reading is above the
applicable threshold (indicating that the equipment is leaking) and, if
the equipment is leaking, repair the leak as described in section
IV.A.4 of this preamble.
Instrument monitoring. Instrument monitoring would require you to
check for leaks with a portable instrument in accordance with Method 21
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. A leak would be detected if you obtain
an instrument reading above the threshold (i.e., leak definition)
specified in the applicable section of the proposed regulation. If you
detect a leak, you would be required to repair the leak as described in
section IV.A.4 of this preamble. The frequency at which you would be
required to conduct instrument monitoring is specified for each type of
equipment. For some equipment, the required monitoring frequency varies
depending on the percentage of the equipment in the applicable process
unit that was determined to be leaking in previous monitoring periods.
In addition to following the procedures in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7, the proposed rule would require you to conduct a
calibration drift assessment at the end of each monitoring day. The
proposed rule also specifies procedures that would allow you to correct
instrument readings for background concentrations of regulated
materials.
Optical gas imaging. Another method of detecting leaks from
equipment is to scan equipment using a device or system specially
designed to use one of several types of remote sensing techniques,
including optical gas imaging of infrared wavelengths, differential
absorption light detection and ranging [DIAL], and solar occultation
flux. The most common optical gas imaging instrument (also referred to
as a ``camera'') is a passive system that creates an image based on the
absorption of infrared wavelengths. A gas cloud containing certain
hydrocarbons (i.e., leaks) will show up as black or white plumes
(depending on the instrument settings and characteristics of the leak)
on the optical gas imaging instrument screen. This type of optical gas
imaging instrument is the device on which our optical gas imaging
provisions are based.
On December 22, 2008, we published an Alternative Work Practice
(AWP) for LDAR that includes a combination of optical gas imaging and
instrument monitoring techniques (73 FR 78199). The AWP provisions are
located in the General Provisions in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, so any
source subject to LDAR requirements in any current equipment leak rule
may elect to comply with this AWP. (This includes the proposed Uniform
Standards, as proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H specifies that those
sections would continue to apply to the referencing subparts.) In
addition, we are proposing the optical gas imaging-only provisions
described in section IV.A.5 of this preamble. If specifically allowed
by your referencing subpart, you would be allowed to use optical gas
imaging rather than instrument monitoring to detect leaks from your
equipment. You would be required to comply with the leak survey
procedures for an optical gas imaging device that will be proposed in
40 CFR part 60, appendix K.
Equipment design. Proposed standards for some equipment consist of
design features that either provide an additional barrier to emissions
or provide for collection of otherwise discharged material for recycle,
reuse or treatment. Where applicable, the specific requirements for
each type of equipment and control level are described in section
IV.A.4 of this preamble.
4. What are the specific equipment leak standards we are proposing?
As in current equipment leak rules, the proposed Uniform Standards
for equipment leaks are based on a combination of standards, including
[[Page 17930]]
LDAR programs, equipment design standards and performance standards. In
addition, we are proposing two alternative means of compliance that can
be used only in specific situations. Many of these proposed equipment
leak standards are consistent with current equipment leak standards.
The discussion in this section IV.A of the preamble describes all
elements of the proposed standards. Section IV.B of this preamble
discusses how we developed the proposed provisions and describes how
the proposed provisions are consistent with one or more previous rules
or why we are introducing additional requirements unique to this
proposal.
For most types of equipment, current rules specify separate
requirements for equipment in different types of service (e.g., gas and
vapor service, light liquid service). The proposed Uniform Standards
also follow this type of approach; for certain types of equipment
(e.g., valves), the proposed Uniform Standards include specific
instrument monitoring requirements for equipment in gas and vapor
service and equipment in light liquid service and specify specific
sensory monitoring requirements for equipment in heavy liquid service.
We are also proposing that the sensory monitoring requirements would
apply to other equipment that meet certain criteria, such as equipment
in regulated service less than 300 hr/yr and equipment that contains or
contacts regulated material, but not in sufficient quantities to be
operating in regulated material service.
Section IV.A.4 of this preamble describes proposed standards for
specific types of equipment. After you identify indications of a
potential leak using sensory monitoring or identify a leak using
instrument monitoring, optical gas imaging or other method, the
proposed rule would require you to repair the leaking equipment using
procedures that also are summarized in section IV.A.4 of this preamble.
Finally, alternative equipment leak standards that are provided in the
proposed rule are summarized in section IV.A.4 of this preamble.
Proposed requirements for valves in gas and vapor service and
valves in light liquid service. We are proposing that for valves in gas
and vapor service and valves in light liquid service, you would be
required to conduct instrument monitoring on a monthly basis for at
least the first 2 months after initial startup. An instrument reading
of 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater would indicate a leak
requiring repair. Following the first 2 months, you would be required
to conduct instrument monitoring at a frequency dependent upon the
percentage of leaking valves within the process unit in those first 2
months (the proposed frequencies range from monthly if more than 2
percent of the valves were leaking to biennially if less than 0.25
percent of the valves were leaking). We are also proposing that you may
use prior monitoring data in lieu of conducting initial monthly
monitoring. For example, if your valves in gas and vapor service and
valves in light liquid service are already subject to instrument
monitoring and repair of leaks at 500 ppm or greater, you would be able
to consider the monitoring data collected under your current rule to
determine your monitoring frequency for the Uniform Standards.
We are also proposing provisions for subgrouping valves for
monitoring purposes. We are proposing specific monitoring and repair
requirements for valves located at a plant site with fewer than 250
total valves, valves for which the valve mechanism is not connected to
a device that penetrates the valve housing (e.g., most check valves),
unsafe-to-monitor valves and difficult-to-monitor valves.
Proposed requirements for pumps in light liquid service. We are
proposing monthly instrument monitoring for pumps in light liquid
service. The instrument reading indicating a leak would vary based on
the type of material being handled by that pump: 5,000 ppm or greater
for pumps handling polymerizing monomers and 2,000 ppm or greater for
all other pumps. In addition to instrument monitoring, you would be
required to conduct a weekly visual inspection of all pumps in light
liquid service for dripping liquids. If you found indications of
liquids dripping, you would be required either to repair the pump seal,
eliminating the indications of liquids dripping or to conduct
instrument monitoring. If you elected to conduct instrument monitoring,
the instrument reading that defines a leak requiring repair would be
5,000 ppm for a pump handling polymerizing monomers or 2,000 ppm for
all other pumps.
We are also proposing specific monitoring and repair requirements
for pumps equipped with a dual mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system, pumps with no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing, pumps located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site, unsafe-to-monitor pumps and difficult-to-monitor
pumps.
Proposed requirements for connectors in gas and vapor service and
connectors in light liquid service. If your referencing subpart
specifically references proposed 40 CFR 65.422, you would be required
to conduct instrument monitoring for connectors in gas and vapor
service and connectors in light liquid service, and you would be
required to conduct initial instrument monitoring within 12 months of
the compliance date specified in a referencing subpart or 12 months
after initial startup, whichever is later. We are also proposing to
specify that if all the connectors in a process unit have been
monitored for leaks prior to the compliance date specified in the
referencing subpart, no initial monitoring is required, provided that
either no process changes have been made since the prior monitoring or
you can show that the results of the monitoring reliably demonstrate
compliance despite process changes. Following the initial monitoring,
you would be required to conduct instrument monitoring at a frequency
between annually and every 8 years, depending on the percentage of
leaking connectors within the process unit. An instrument reading of
500 ppm or greater would indicate a leak that would require repair. We
are also proposing specific monitoring and repair requirements for
unsafe-to-monitor connectors; difficult-to-monitor connectors; and
inaccessible, ceramic or ceramic-lined connectors. Note that you would
only be required to conduct instrument monitoring for connectors in gas
and vapor service and connectors in light liquid service if your
referencing subpart specifies that you must comply with proposed 40 CFR
65.422.
Proposed requirements for agitators in gas and vapor service and
agitators in light liquid service. We are proposing monthly instrument
monitoring for agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in
light liquid service. An instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater
would indicate a leak that would require repair. In addition to
instrument monitoring, you would be required to conduct weekly visual
inspection of agitators. If you found indications of liquids dripping
from the agitator seal, you would be required either to repair the
agitator seal, eliminating the indications of liquids dripping or to
conduct instrument monitoring. If you elected to conduct instrument
monitoring, the instrument reading that defines a leak would be 10,000
ppm or greater. We are also proposing specific monitoring and repair
requirements for agitators equipped with a dual mechanical seal system
that includes a barrier fluid system, agitators with no externally
actuated shaft penetrating the
[[Page 17931]]
agitator housing, agitators located within the boundary of an unmanned
plant site, agitators obstructed by equipment or piping, unsafe-to-
monitor agitators and difficult-to-monitor agitators.
Proposed requirements for PRD. Proposed 40 CFR 65.424 includes
operational requirements and pressure release management requirements
for all PRD in regulated material service. We are proposing that you
operate PRD in gas or vapor service with an instrument reading less
than 500 ppm above background. If your PRD includes or consists of a
rupture disk, you would be required to install a replacement disk no
later than 5 calendar days after each pressure release. In addition,
after each pressure release from a PRD in gas or vapor service
(regardless of the type of PRD), you would be required to conduct
instrument monitoring to confirm that the instrument reading is less
than 500 ppm no later than 5 calendar days after the PRD returns to
regulated material service following a pressure release.
In addition, we are proposing provisions that would apply only if
your referencing subpart specifies that no releases to the atmosphere
are allowed from any PRD in regulated material service. We are
proposing that for each such PRD, you would be required to install and
operate a monitor capable of identifying a pressure release, recording
the time and duration of each pressure release and notifying operators
that a pressure release has occurred. We are also proposing that if the
monitor is capable of monitoring concentration of any flow through the
PRD, then you would not also be required to conduct separate instrument
monitoring no later than 5 calendar days after the PRD returns to
regulated material service following a pressure release to confirm that
the instrument reading is less than 500 ppm. You would also be required
to calculate, record and report the quantity of regulated material
released during each pressure relief event. Note that your referencing
subpart may include other requirements for releases to the atmosphere
as well.
Proposed requirements for compressors. We are proposing two
compliance options for compressors in regulated material service. The
first would be to equip the compressor with a seal system that includes
a barrier fluid system and that prevents leakage of process fluid to
the atmosphere. You would determine, based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion that indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system or both. You would also be required to
equip the compressor with a sensor that would detect a failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system or both. If a failure is
indicated by either of those methods, a leak is detected, and you would
be required to repair the leak. You would also be required to conduct
sensory monitoring for all potential points of vapor leakage on the
compressor other than the seal system.
The second option would be to designate that the compressor
operates with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background at all times. After you initially confirm that the
compressor has an instrument reading less than 500 ppm, you would be
required to conduct ongoing instrument monitoring at least annually to
demonstrate that the compressor operates with an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background. If the instrument reading from any
part of the compressor is 500 ppm above background or greater, the
compressor would not be in compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 65,
subpart J until the next instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background.
Proposed requirements for sampling connection systems. We are
proposing equipment design standards for sampling connection systems.
You would be required to equip the sampling connection system with a
closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent system. You would be required
to control purged process fluids by returning them to the process line,
to a process, routing them to a control device, routing them to a fuel
gas system or treating them in a waste management unit, a hazardous
waste treatment facility or a device used to burn used oil for energy
recovery (all of which would be required to meet specific standards).
Gases displaced during filling of the sample container and gases
remaining in the tubing or piping between the closed-purge system
valve(s) and sample container valves(s) after the valves are closed and
the sample container is disconnected are not considered to be purged
process fluids and would not be required to be collected or captured.
We are proposing to clarify that analyzer vents are considered sampling
connection systems (and that CEMS are not considered analyzer vents).
In-situ sampling systems and systems without purges would be exempt
from these standards.
Proposed requirements for open-ended valves and lines in gas and
vapor service and open-ended valves and lines in light liquid service.
We are proposing equipment and operational standards for open-ended
lines and open-ended valves. You would be required to equip open-ended
valves and lines with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve. The
cap, blind flange, plug or second valve would be required to seal the
open-ended valve or line at all times, except during operations
requiring process fluid flow through the open-ended valve or line,
during maintenance or during operations that require venting the line
between block valves in a double block and bleed system. If the open-
ended valve or line is equipped with a second valve, you would be
required to close the valve on the process fluid end before closing the
second valve.
In addition, you would be required to conduct annual instrument
monitoring to demonstrate that the open-ended valve or line operates
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background (i.e.,
that the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve seals the open-ended
valve or line at all times). If the instrument reading is 500 ppm above
background or greater, the open-ended valve or line would not be in
compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J until the next
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background.
Open-ended valves and lines in an emergency shutdown system that
are designed to open automatically in the event of a process upset
would be exempt from the equipment design and instrument monitoring
requirements. However, if your referencing subpart specifies that
releases to the atmosphere from these types of open-ended valves and
lines are not allowed, then any time an open-ended valve or line of
this type does release to the atmosphere, it would not be in compliance
with proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. (Note that your referencing
subpart may include other requirements for releases to the atmosphere
as well.) In addition, open-ended valves and lines containing materials
that would auto catalytically polymerize or would present an explosion,
serious overpressure or other safety hazard if capped or equipped with
a double block and bleed system would be exempt from the equipment and
instrument monitoring requirements. Instead, you would be required to
conduct sensory monitoring for these open-ended valves and lines.
Proposed requirements for equipment in closed vent systems and fuel
gas systems. We are proposing operational standards for equipment in
closed vent systems and fuel gas systems. You would be required to
conduct annual instrument monitoring to demonstrate that each piece of
equipment in a closed vent system or fuel gas system operates with an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background. If the
[[Page 17932]]
instrument reading is 500 ppm above background or greater, the
equipment would not be in compliance with proposed 40 CFR part 65,
subpart J until the next instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background.
Proposed requirements for detecting leaks from other equipment. We
are proposing that sensory monitoring would be the basic level of
control for all equipment. Sensory monitoring would be required for all
equipment that contains or contacts regulated material, but is not
required to comply with the specific requirements in proposed 40 CFR
65.420 through 65.427. This would include: (1) Equipment at a plant
site with less than 1,500 total pieces of equipment; (2) equipment that
contains or contacts regulated material, but not in sufficient
quantities to be operating in regulated material service; (3) equipment
in regulated material service less than 300 hr/yr; (4) valves, pumps,
connectors and agitators in heavy liquid service; (5) connectors not
required by your referencing subpart to comply with 40 CFR 65.422; (6)
instrumentation systems; (7) PRD in liquid service; (8) any equipment
for which sensory monitoring is required specifically by a provision in
proposed 40 CFR 65.420 through 65.427 (e.g., potential points of vapor
leakage on the compressor other than the seal system, open-ended valves
and lines containing materials that would auto catalytically polymerize
or would present an explosion, serious overpressure or other safety
hazard if capped or equipped with a double block and bleed system); and
(9) any other equipment, as specified by your referencing subpart. If
you found indications of a potential leak, you would be required either
to repair the equipment, eliminating the indications of the potential
leak or conduct instrument monitoring to confirm whether there is a
leak within 5 calendar days of detection. If you elected to conduct
instrument monitoring, the instrument reading that defines a leak
requiring repair is specified in proposed Table 1 to subpart J of 40
CFR part 65.
We are also proposing special requirements for equipment in vacuum
service. You would be required to identify equipment operating in
vacuum service. You would also be required to demonstrate that the
equipment is operating in vacuum service by installing and maintaining
a pressure gauge and alarm system that will alert an operator
immediately and automatically when the equipment is not operating
vacuum service. If the alarm were triggered, you would be required
either to initiate procedures immediately to return the equipment to
vacuum service or to begin to comply with the applicable requirements
of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J (e.g., comply with the instrument
monitoring requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.420 for valves in gas and
vapor service and valves in light liquid service).
Proposed repair requirements. We are proposing to specify that when
the standards indicate that you are required to repair a leak, you
would be required to do so as soon as practical, but not later than 15
calendar days after the leak is detected. You would also be required to
make a first attempt at repair no later than 5 calendar days after the
leak is detected. For leaks detected through instrument monitoring or
optical gas imaging, repair would include instrument monitoring or
optical gas imaging within the specified time frame to verify that the
leak was repaired successfully.
We are also proposing to allow repairs to be delayed in a few
specific situations. First, you would be allowed to delay repair if the
repair is technically infeasible within 15 days of detection without a
process unit shutdown. We are proposing to require repair of this
equipment as soon as practical, but no later than the end of the next
process unit shutdown or 5 years after detection, whichever is sooner.
Any shutdown of 24 hours or longer would be considered the next process
unit shutdown during which you would be required to repair the leak.
Second, you would be allowed to delay repair if you determine that
repair personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger as a
consequence of complying with the repair requirement and you designate
the equipment as unsafe-to-repair. Third, a delay in repair would be
allowed for equipment that is isolated from the process and that does
not remain in regulated material service. Fourth, for valves,
connectors and agitators, delay of repair would be allowed if you
demonstrate that emissions of purged material resulting from immediate
repair would be greater than the fugitive emissions likely to result
from delay of repair. When you do repair the valve, connector or
agitator, you would be required to ensure the purged material is
collected and destroyed, collected and routed to a fuel gas system or
process or routed through a closed vent system to a control device.
Finally, for pumps, you would be allowed to delay repair up to 6 months
after the leak was detected if you demonstrate that repair would
require a design change such as replacement of the existing seal design
with a new seal system or a dual mechanical seal system, installing a
pump with no external shaft or routing emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device or to a fuel gas system. Regardless of the
reason that you delay repair, you would be required to continue
instrument monitoring on the appropriate schedule for that type of
equipment.
If you delay repair of a valve or connector beyond 15 days, we are
proposing to require that you repair the leaking equipment by replacing
the leaking equipment with low leak technology unless it is not
technically feasible to do so. You would have several types of ``low
leak technologies'' from which to select. For valves, you could elect
to repack the valve, replace the leaking valve with a valve designed to
accommodate specific types of packing or replace the existing valve
with a bellow seal valve. For connectors, you would have the option to
replace the flange gasket or the entire connector. If you cannot
replace the leaking equipment with low leak technology, then you would
be required to explain why that replacement is technically infeasible
in your annual periodic report and to keep records of the demonstration
that replacement is technically infeasible. In addition, if that
equipment leaks again in the future and you delay the repair beyond 15
days, you would be required to conduct a new analysis of the technical
feasibility of using low leak technology (i.e., you would not be
allowed to just refer to the previous demonstration).
Proposed alternative standards. We are proposing to provide an
alternative compliance option specifically for equipment in regulated
material service in batch operations. If you conduct instrument
monitoring for equipment in batch operations, we are proposing to
provide alternative monitoring frequencies to accommodate non-
continuous operation. In addition, each time you reconfigured the
process components and transport piping in the batch operation for the
production of a different product, you would be required to monitor the
equipment in the reconfigured process for leaks within 30 days of
beginning operation of the process.
5. What are the proposed standards for using an optical gas imaging
device to detect leaks?
We anticipate that for some source categories, specific
requirements for using an optical gas imaging device to detect leaks
without accompanying instrument monitoring could be an
[[Page 17933]]
appropriate alternative to the requirements described in section IV.A.4
of this preamble. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the use of
optical gas imaging as a standalone technique for detecting equipment
leaks in regulated material service. These provisions for leak
detection would be allowed as an alternative only if your referencing
subpart includes a direct reference to proposed 40 CFR 65.450. At this
time, we are allowing only limited use of optical gas imaging because
we believe that this technique currently is not suitable for detection
of leaking compounds in all industry sectors due to the limitation of
the number of compounds that can be screened using this technology.
However, we fully expect that the technology will improve over time and
that the number of industry sectors allowed to use this option will
increase in the future.
Additionally, we are currently developing a protocol for using
optical gas imaging techniques. The protocol will be proposed to be
promulgated as appendix K to 40 CFR part 60. Proposed 40 CFR 65.450
specifies that you must follow this protocol if you opt to use optical
gas imaging in lieu of EPA Method 21. This protocol will outline
specifications of the equipment that must be used, calibration
techniques, procedures for conducting surveys and training requirements
for optical gas imaging instrument operators. The protocol will not
specify the instrument that must be used, but it will provide
specifications and performance criteria that must be met. The protocol
will contain techniques to verify that your instrument can image the
most prevalent chemical in your process unit. Because field conditions
greatly impact detection of the regulated material using optical gas
imaging, the protocol will describe the impact that these field
conditions may have on readings and how to address them, as well as
when monitoring with this technique is inappropriate. These field
conditions include distance to the target, complex thermal
environments, position of the sun, background temperatures, humidity,
wind speed, wind direction, angle to the target and time of day. The
protocol will also address difficulties with identifying equipment and
leaks in dense industrial areas.
We note that, to date, appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 has not been
proposed for review and comment. When appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 is
proposed, we will request comments on that appendix K. In addition, we
intend to provide an opportunity to comment on the application of
appendix K to 40 CFR part 60 to the optical gas imaging provisions in
these Uniform Standards.
If you elect to comply with 40 CFR 65.450, then we are proposing
that, unless your referencing subpart specifies otherwise, you would
monitor your equipment bimonthly, and that the optical gas imaging
instrument would be required to detect leaks at 60 grams per hour or
greater. Any image that appears on the optical gas imaging instrument
screen would be considered a leak requiring repair, regardless of the
type of equipment leaking. You would be required to follow the repair
requirements in proposed 40 CFR 65.432, except that the monitoring to
verify repair would be monitoring using the optical gas imaging
instrument rather than instrument monitoring. You would be allowed to
delay repair of leaks under the same provisions as if you conducted
instrument monitoring (proposed 40 CFR 65.432(d)), including leaks that
are technically infeasible to repair without a process unit shutdown
and leaks in unsafe-to-repair equipment.
6. What are the notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
Notification of Compliance Status. We are proposing that the
Notification of Compliance Status required by 40 CFR 65.225 would
include: (1) The process unit, closed vent system or fuel gas system
identification; (2) the number of each equipment type (e.g., valves,
pumps); (3) method of compliance with the standard for that equipment;
and (4) whether you used monitoring data generated before the regulated
source became subject to the referencing subpart to qualify for less
frequent monitoring of valves and/or connectors. If your method of
compliance is a closed vent system and control device or a fuel gas
system, you would include the applicable information specified in
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. In addition, if your referencing
subpart required you to comply with 40 CFR 65.424(c) for PRD in
regulated material service, you would be required to provide: (1) A
description of the monitoring system to be implemented and (2) a
description of the alarms or other methods by which operators will be
notified of a release.
Semiannual periodic report. We are proposing that the semiannual
periodic report required by 40 CFR 65.225 would include: (1) For
compressors that you choose to operate at an instrument reading of less
than 500 ppm, the date of an instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater
and the date of the next instrument reading less than 500 ppm; (2) for
PRD in gas or vapor service, any instrument reading of 500 ppm or
greater more than 5 days after the PRD returns to service after a
release; (3) for open-ended valves and lines, the date of an instrument
reading of 500 ppm or greater and the date of the next instrument
reading less than 500 ppm; (4) for PRD for which the referencing
subpart states may not release to the atmosphere, information about
each release, including duration of the release and an estimate of the
quantity of substances released; (5) if your referencing subpart
specifies that releases to the atmosphere from open-ended valves and
lines in an emergency shutdown system that are designed to open
automatically in the event of a process upset are not allowed,
information about each release; (6) for equipment in closed vent
systems and fuel gas systems, the date of an instrument reading of 500
ppm or greater and the date of the next instrument reading less than
500 ppm; and (7) for closed vent systems, control devices and fuel gas
systems, the applicable information specified in proposed 40 CFR part
65, subpart M.
Annual periodic report. We are proposing that the annual periodic
report would include a summary table showing: (1) The process unit
identification; (2) the number of each type of equipment for which
leaks were detected, either by instrument monitoring or by other method
(e.g., sensor on a compressor seal system); (3) the total number of
valves and connectors monitored and the percent leaking; (4) the number
of leaks for each type of equipment that were not repaired; and (5) the
number of valves that are determined to be non-repairable. The annual
periodic report also would include: (1) Information about instances of
delayed repairs, including the demonstration that it was technically
infeasible to replace a leaking valve or connector with low leak
technology; (2) for PRD in gas and vapor service, confirmation that you
conducted all required instrument monitoring to demonstrate that the
instrument reading was less than 500 ppm no later than 5 calendar days
after a PRD returned to regulated material service following a pressure
release; (3) for compressors operated at an instrument reading of less
than 500 ppm and open-ended valves and lines, confirmation that you
conducted all required instrument monitoring to demonstrate that the
instrument reading is less than 500 ppm; (4) for open-ended lines and
valves, confirmation that you conducted all monitoring to demonstrate
that the instrument reading is less than 500 ppm; (5) for equipment
[[Page 17934]]
in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems, confirmation that you
conducted all monitoring to demonstrate that the instrument reading is
less than 500 ppm; (6) for closed vent systems, control devices and
fuel gas systems, the applicable information specified in proposed 40
CFR part 65, subpart M; (7) for regulated sources not included in the
Notification of Compliance Status due to later compliance dates, the
information required under the Notification of Compliance Status; and
(8) any revisions to items reported in an earlier Notification of
Compliance Status if the method of compliance has changed since the
last report.
Recordkeeping. We are proposing that you would keep the following
general records: (1) Equipment identification (including identification
of unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor equipment) if the equipment is not
physically tagged; (2) for unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor equipment,
an explanation of why it is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor and a
planned monitoring schedule; (3) identification of compressors
operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm; (4)
documentation of the determination that equipment is in heavy liquid
service or is in regulated material service less than 300 hr/yr; (5)
for equipment in vacuum service, records of any pressure alarms
triggered and the duration the equipment was not in vacuum service; (6)
monitoring instrument calibrations; (7) documentation and dates of
monitoring events, leak detection, repairs and repair attempts,
including documentation explaining why repair must be delayed and why a
valve or connector could not be repaired using low leak technology, if
applicable; and (8) the applicable records specified in proposed 40 CFR
part 65, subpart M for closed vent systems, control devices and fuel
gas systems used to comply with this subpart.
We are also proposing that you would keep the following records
specific to equipment type: (1) For valves, the monitoring schedule for
each process unit, documentation of the percent leaking calculation and
documentation of valve subgrouping; (2) for pumps, documentation of
visual inspections, documentation of dual mechanical seal pump visual
inspections and documentation of the criteria that indicate failure of
the seal system or the barrier fluid system; (3) for connectors, the
start date and end date of each monitoring period for each process unit
and documentation of the percent leaking calculation; (4) for
agitators, documentation of visual inspections, documentation of dual
mechanical seal agitator visual inspections and documentation of the
criteria that indicate failure of the seal system or the barrier fluid
system; (5) for PRD, the dates and results of each compliance test
conducted for PRD in gas or vapor service after a pressure release and,
if applicable, documentation of pressure releases (including duration
and quantity of regulated material released); (6) for compressors,
documentation of the criteria that indicate failure of the seal system
or the barrier fluid system and, if applicable, the dates and results
of each compliance test for compressors operating under the alternative
compressor standard; (7) for sampling connection systems, documentation
of the date and amount of each purge; (8) for open-ended lines and
valves, the dates and results of each compliance test; and (9) for
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems, the dates and
results of each compliance test.
If you elect to perform instrument monitoring to demonstrate
compliance for equipment in batch operations, you would record: (1) A
list of equipment added to the batch operation since the last
monitoring period; (2) the date and results of the monitoring for
equipment added to a batch operation since the last monitoring period;
(3) a statement that the inspection was performed if no leaking
equipment is found; and (4) the proportion of the time during the
calendar year that all the equipment in regulated material service in
the batch operation is in use, including documentation that the
equipment is in regulated material service the day you conduct
monitoring.
For optical gas imaging, you would be required to keep: (1)
Identification of the equipment and process units for which you choose
to use the optical gas imaging instrument; (2) any records required to
be kept by 40 CFR part 60, appendix K; (3) the video record used to
document the leak survey results; and (4) the documentation of repairs
and repair attempts otherwise required by proposed 40 CFR part 65,
subpart J.
B. Rationale
The proposed equipment LDAR requirements in the Uniform Standards
are based on a survey and analysis of emissions reduction techniques
that considered current practices and advances in technology, as well
as the emissions reduction impacts and the cost impacts for model
plants implementing those practices and technologies. The options
considered in this analysis were developed mostly based on current
federal rules, such as the National Emission Standards for Equipment
Leaks--Control Level 2 Standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU; ``Level 2
EL Generic MACT''), the Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of
VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After November
7, 2006 (40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa; ``NSPS VVa'') and the National
Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment
Leaks (40 CFR part 63, subpart H; ``HON''). Other options were
developed from state and local rules and would be additional
requirements not yet included in current federal regulations.
The proposed requirements for each type of equipment are the
requirements that we determined are the most effective and reasonable
for reducing emissions from equipment leaks after reviewing current
rules and considering the costs and emissions reductions associated
with each option. As noted previously in this preamble, we will
determine the nationwide emissions reductions and cost impacts for any
source category from which we propose to reference these Uniform
Standards in the future to ensure those impacts continue to be
reasonable on a nationwide basis, as well as meet any applicable
statutory requirements (e.g., MACT, AMOS, BSER). The remainder of
section IV.B of this preamble summarizes how the results of the
analysis led us to the proposed requirements; a more detailed
description of the development of the analysis is available in the
technical memorandum, Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques for
Equipment Leaks, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.
1. What were the options considered in the analysis and what are the
cost and VOC emissions reduction impacts of those options?
We developed six model plants--three to represent chemical
manufacturing processes and three to represent petroleum refineries.
The chemical manufacturing models represent a range of process sizes,
from a simple process with about 1,200 total pieces of equipment to a
complex process with nearly 13,000 total pieces of equipment. The
refinery models also represent a range of sizes, from a simple topping
refinery with a total of about 1,800 pieces of equipment to a complex
refinery with over 43,000 total pieces of equipment. These models
allowed us to consider the costs and VOC emissions
[[Page 17935]]
reduction impacts for processes of various sizes in multiple
industries. We are aware that there are process units and facilities
larger than our largest model; however, these models were intended to
cover a range of sizes representing a majority of the process units and
facilities potentially subject to 40 CFR part 65, subpart J. In
addition, the options considered for the Uniform Standards that are
affected by economies of scale will have a greater impact on smaller
processes than larger processes. We note that for each subpart that we
propose to reference the Uniform Standards in the future, we will
estimate nationwide costs and emissions reductions on a source
category-specific basis. In most cases, we expect that since we have
developed representative models for this analysis of the Uniform
Standards, we will be able to use these model plants as a basis for
each source category-specific analysis. We will then use available data
from each specific source category to adjust the models to represent
that industry more accurately, which will provide a better estimate of
the source category-specific nationwide costs and emissions.
As a first step, we decided to consider the impacts of implementing
a LDAR program at an uncontrolled facility. While we expect that most
equipment in regulated material service is already subject to a basic
LDAR program, we wanted to evaluate the impacts of that program rather
than simply assuming that a basic LDAR program is effective. We
determined the costs and VOC emissions associated with implementing a
basic LDAR program (hereafter referred to as the ``baseline'') for each
of the six models. The elements that make up the baseline LDAR program
are described in the following paragraphs.
Most current equipment leaks regulations include two types of leak
detection methodologies: Instrument monitoring using Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and sensory monitoring. Based on our review
of the requirements and the applicability of current rules, including
federal, state and local rules, we determined that baseline was
implementation of a LDAR program equivalent to the requirements in the
National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1 (40
CFR part 63, subpart TT; ``Level 1 EL Generic MACT'') and Standards of
Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic
Compound Manufacturing Industry for which Construction, Reconstruction,
or Modification Commenced After January 5, 1981 but Before November 7,
2006 (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV; ``NSPS VV''). These requirements
include instrument monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7, for valves and agitators in gas and vapor service and for
valves, pumps and agitators in light liquid service. The baseline leak
definition for all of the above types of equipment is 10,000 ppm, and
each piece of equipment must be monitored monthly, although valves may
be transitioned to a less frequent monitoring schedule if they meet
certain criteria (e.g., the owner or operator may elect a reduced
monitoring schedule if the percentage of valves leaking is equal to or
less than 2.0 percent). The baseline requirements also include sensory
monitoring for connectors; pumps, valves and agitators in heavy liquid
service; PRD in liquid service; and instrumentation systems. Finally,
the baseline requirements include instrument monitoring of PRD in gas
and vapor service after a release to verify that the PRD is operating
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm; equipping compressors
with a seal system or maintaining them at or below an instrument
reading of 500 ppm; handling of the process fluid collected through
sampling connection systems properly; and equipping open-ended valves
and lines with a cap, blind flange, plug, or a second valve.
We determined the cost and VOC emissions reduction impacts of the
baseline LDAR program described above for each of the six models. We
then calculated the cost effectiveness for the six models. The results
of these calculations are shown in Table 10 of this preamble.
Table 10--Baseline LDAR Program Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Model Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Total VOC
Uncontrolled Capital cost costs without VOC recovery Total emissions Overall cost
Model VOC emissions ($) recovery credit ($) annualized reduction effectiveness ($/
(tpy) credits ($) costs ($) (tpy) ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models.... 1 10 91,000 41,000 (2,900) 38,000 5.9 7,000
2 79 460,000 130,000 (32,000) 98,000 63 2,000
3 160 860,000 230,000 (62,000) 160,000 120 1,800
����������������������������������----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models........ 4 30 160,000 57,000 (14,000) 43,000 28 2,000
5 270 960,000 260,000 (130,000) 140,000 250 1,000
6 470 1,700,000 460,000 (210,000) 250,000 420 1,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we compared the cost effectiveness of the baseline conditions
for each model to the number of pieces of equipment in the models, we
found that implementing the baseline LDAR program is more cost
effective for models with higher equipment counts. This is due to the
fact that there are several costs in the analysis that are fixed
regardless of the number of pieces of equipment, such as the cost of
the monitoring instrument and the number of hours spent on
administrative activities and preparing reports. In particular, we note
that baseline is the least cost effective for the model with less than
1,500 pieces of equipment.
From baseline, we evaluated a total of five regulatory options, two
for valves, two for pumps and one for connectors. In each of these
options, we considered the impacts of increasing the stringency of one
piece of the LDAR program, each option building on the one before it
for that specific piece of equipment. We decided to develop the options
in this manner to consider the effectiveness of each piece of the
program separately and ensure that the LDAR program proposed for the
Uniform Standards included the most appropriate pieces. The calculation
methodologies used to develop the cost and emissions reduction impacts
for each of the models are described in the technical memorandum,
Analysis of Emissions Reduction Techniques for Equipment Leaks, in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.
Throughout the rest of this section of the preamble, we present the
impacts and cost effectiveness for each of the models. The costs and
VOC emissions associated with each of the regulatory options were
compared with the baseline costs and VOC emissions (or the previous
option costs and VOC emissions, as appropriate) to determine the
incremental costs and VOC emissions reduction impacts.
[[Page 17936]]
In Option 1 for valves, we considered the effect of lowering the
leak definition from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm for valves in gas and vapor
service and valves in light liquid service. Table 11 of this preamble
shows the incremental costs and VOC emissions reductions of lowering
the leak definition from 10,000 ppm (baseline) to 500 ppm for valves in
gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service.
Table 11--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 1 for Valves (Leak Definition of 500 ppm) Incremental to Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Capital cost costs without VOC recovery Total VOC emissions Overall cost
Model ($) recovery credit ($) annualized reduction effectiveness ($/
credits ($) costs ($) (tpy) ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models.................... 1 1,700 360 (350) 15 0.69 22
2 6,200 1,300 (1,200) 97 2.4 40
3 14,000 2,900 (2,500) 360 5.0 71
��������������������������������������������������------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models........................ 4 1,200 480 (210) 270 0.42 630
5 13,000 5,400 (2,300) 3,000 4.7 650
6 34,000 14,000 (5,900) 7,700 12 650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Option 2 for valves, we considered further lowering the leak
definition for valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light
liquid service to 100 ppm. The leak definition of 100 ppm for valves is
required in some state and local regulations, as well as consent
decrees. However, we estimate that the incremental costs to reduce a
ton of VOC emissions for this option increase significantly for all of
the models compared to Option 1 for valves. Table 12 of this preamble
shows the incremental costs and VOC emissions reductions of lowering
the leak definition from 500 ppm (Option 1 for valves) to 100 ppm for
valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service.
Table 12--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 2 for Valves (Leak Definition of 100 ppm) Incremental to Option 1 for
Valves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
costs without VOC recovery Total VOC emissions Overall cost
Model Capital cost ($) recovery credit ($) annualized reduction effectiveness
credits ($) costs ($) (tpy) ($/ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models.................. 1 3,800 960 (62) 900 0.12 7,300
2 14,000 3,400 (360) 3,000 0.73 4,200
3 31,000 7,500 (910) 6,600 1.8 3,600
������������������������������������������������--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models...................... 4 5,300 2,900 (170) 2,800 0.33 8,400
5 59,000 29,000 (1,500) 28,000 3.1 9,000
6 150,000 83,000 (4,300) 79,000 8.7 9,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Option 1 for pumps, we considered the effect of lowering the
leak definition from 10,000 ppm to 2,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid
service. Table 13 of this preamble shows the incremental costs and VOC
emissions reductions of lowering the leak definition from 10,000 ppm
(baseline) to 2,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid service. The analysis
showed that Option 1 for pumps is more cost effective for the chemical
manufacturing models than for the refinery models.
Table 13--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 1 for Pumps (Leak Definition of 2,000 ppm) Incremental to Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Capital costs costs without VOC recovery Total VOC emissions Overall cost
Model ($) recovery credit ($) annualized reduction effectiveness ($/
credits ($) costs ($) (tpy) ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models.................... 1 2,200 440 (130) 310 0.26 1,200
2 5,900 1,200 (350) 830 0.70 1,200
3 8,300 1,700 (490) 1,200 0.98 1,200
��������������������������������������������������------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models........................ 4 260 200 (15) 190 0.030 6,300
5 2,300 1,800 (130) 1,600 0.26 6,300
6 5,800 4,500 (330) 4,200 0.65 6,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17937]]
While this particular analysis showed that Option 1 for pumps is
less cost effective for the refinery models, we note that there appear
to be some anomalies in the values themselves. The large chemical
manufacturing model (Model 3) and the small refinery model (Model 5)
have a similar number of pumps, and the annualized costs (without VOC
recovery credits) for these models is also very similar. However, the
VOC recovery credit and VOC emissions reductions per year for Model 3
are over 3.5 times higher than those for Model 5. This trend is due to
the fact that the calculated emissions factors for refinery pumps in
this analysis range from about 2 to 5 times lower than the emissions
factors for chemical manufacturing pumps. Part of that difference is
expected and is due to the differences in the emissions equations in
the Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017,
November 1995). However, part of the difference is also due to the
assumed distribution of leaking pumps in each sector. The distribution
of leaking pumps at refineries was based on a study of quarterly
monitoring of pumps in the 1990s (Analysis of Refinery Screening Data,
prepared by Hal Taback Company for API, November 1997). It is possible
that monthly monitoring data or data collected more recently would
result in a different cost-effectiveness value for refinery pumps.
In Option 2 for pumps, we considered further lowering the leak
definition for pumps in light liquid service to 500 ppm. The leak
definition of 500 ppm for pumps appears in a few consent decrees.
However, we estimated a significantly higher incremental cost to reduce
a ton of VOC emissions for all of the models compared to Option 1 for
pumps. Table 14 of this preamble shows the incremental costs and VOC
emissions reductions of lowering the leak definition from 2,000 ppm
(Option 1 for pumps) to 500 ppm for pumps in light liquid service.
Table 14--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 2 for Pumps (Leak Definition of 500 ppm) Incremental to Option 1 for Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Capital costs costs without VOC recovery Total VOC emissions Overall cost
Model ($) recovery credit ($) annualized Reduction (tpy) effectiveness ($/
credits ($) costs ($) ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models.................. 1 1,000 370 (12) 350 0.024 15,000
2 2,700 980 (32) 940 0.063 15,000
3 3,700 1,400 (44) 1,300 0.088 15,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models...................... 4 140 440 (0.15) 440 0.00031 1,400,000
5 1,200 3,800 (1.3) 3,800 0.0026 1,400,000
6 3,000 9,600 (3.4) 9,600 0.0067 1,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Option 1 for connectors, we considered the impact of adding
instrument monitoring for connectors in gas and vapor service and
connectors in light liquid service as in Level 2 EL Generic MACT. In
this option, the leak definition is 500 ppm. Connectors are monitored
annually, but similar to valves, there are provisions for less frequent
monitoring if the connectors meet certain conditions. When we evaluated
the costs and emission reduction impacts relative to the number of
connectors in the models, we again noticed that the option was more
cost effective for models with the most connectors. Again, this trend
is due to the fact that the number of hours spent on administrative
activities and preparing reports is fixed regardless of the number of
connectors. Table 15 of this preamble shows the incremental costs and
VOC emissions reductions (from baseline) of requiring monitoring of
connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid
service at a leak definition of 500 ppm.
Table 15--Model Plant Costs and VOC Emissions Reduction Estimates for Option 1 for Connectors (Leak Definition of 500 ppm) Incremental to Baseline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Capital costs costs without VOC recovery Total VOC emissions Overall cost
Model ($) recovery credit ($) annualized reduction effectiveness ($/
credits ($) costs ($) (tpy) ton VOC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturing Models.................... 1 19,000 7,900 (510) 7,400 1.0 7,200
2 66,000 16,000 (1,900) 14,000 3.7 3,700
3 180,000 35,000 (5,200) 30,000 10 2,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Refinery Models........................ 4 19,000 7,900 (200) 7,700 0.41 19,000
5 170,000 34,000 (2,000) 32,000 4.0 8,000
6 520,000 93,000 (6,100) 87,000 12 7,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also considered annual instrument monitoring for open-ended
valves and lines. The requirement in nearly all equipment leak
standards to equip open-ended valves and lines with a cap, blind
flange, plug or a second valve is intended to essentially eliminate
emissions from open-ended valves and lines. However, as we noted when
we proposed amendments to NSPS VV (71 FR 65302, November 7, 2006),
inspections conducted by enforcement agencies have found that many of
these closure devices are leaking due to improper installation.
Therefore, some states have begun to require instrument monitoring of
open-ended valves and lines in addition to requiring a cap, blind
flange, plug or a second valve. For example, in the Houston/Galveston/
Brazoria area of
[[Page 17938]]
Texas, petroleum refining and SOCMI process units in which a highly-
reactive volatile organic compound (HRVOC) is a raw material,
intermediate, final product or in a waste stream are subject to the
requirements of part 30, chapter 115, subchapter H, division 3 of the
Texas Administrative Code. One of those requirements is quarterly
monitoring of blind flanges, caps or plugs at the end of a pipe or line
containing HRVOC and repair of leaks above 500 ppm (30 TAC
115.781(b)(3)). If the open-ended line is used for sampling of the
process fluid and the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve is
opened, then the instrument monitoring indicates whether the cap, blind
flange, plug or second valve was re-closed properly after sampling. The
monitoring will also indicate whether the open-ended valve is leaking.
We considered the cost of instrument monitoring for open-ended
valves and lines separately from the other options in this analysis.
Since the cap, blind flange, plug or a second valve is required to seal
the open-ended valve or line and eliminate emissions, we do not expect
that monitoring would achieve any additional emissions reduction.
Rather, the instrument monitoring would ensure compliance with the
requirement that the cap, blind flange, plug or second valve seal the
open-ended valve or line. The nationwide cost of these monitors would
be incorporated into the estimate of monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting burden for the referencing subpart. The costs for the model
plants ranged from a capital cost of $810 and an annualized cost of
$180 for the simple chemical manufacturing model to a capital cost of
$23,000 and an annualized cost of $5,400 for the complex refinery
model.
Similarly, we also estimated the costs of requiring electronic
monitoring of PRD. This analysis was conducted separately from the
options listed above because installation of electronic monitors is not
expected to achieve additional emissions reductions. Rather, the
electronic monitors would be used to notify operators when there is a
pressure release and aid them in ensuring compliance with the
requirement that there be no releases from the PRD. The nationwide cost
of these monitors would be incorporated into the estimate of
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting burden for the referencing
subpart. The costs for the model plants ranged from a capital cost of
$11,000 and an annualized cost of $1,600 for the simple chemical
manufacturing model to a capital cost of $130,000 and an annualized
cost of $19,000 for the complex refinery model. We note that the
requirement to install this type of monitor would only apply if a
referencing subpart specifically referenced this section.
2. How did the EPA develop the proposed regulations based on the
analysis of regulatory options?
The analysis of regulatory options described in section IV.B.1 of
this preamble provided us with the information needed to determine the
appropriate level of stringency for the requirements for the Uniform
Standards for equipment leaks from valves, pumps and connectors. The
next step was to determine the details for the proposed requirements,
as well as determine what other provisions were appropriate to propose
as part of the Uniform Standards. Rather than developing all-new
regulatory language to describe these requirements, we reviewed the
language provided in current equipment leaks regulations. We elected to
use the Level 2 EL Generic MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU) as a
starting point for developing the Uniform Standards for equipment
leaks. We determined that, as one of the most recently promulgated
standards for equipment leaks, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes
many of the provisions that we determined through the analysis
described in section VI.B.I of this preamble are the appropriate level
of control for the Uniform Standards. In addition, the Level 2 EL
Generic MACT was already organized to be referenced from source
category-specific subparts. The major overarching change that we made
to the format of the Level 2 EL Generic MACT was to rearrange and
rephrase all of the provisions to be consistent with our most recent
``plain English'' regulations.
We note that the Level 2 EL Generic MACT specifies certain types of
equipment that are not subject to any of the requirements of that rule,
such as equipment in lines with no process fluids. We have elected not
to propose this specific provision in 40 CFR part 65, subpart J.
Rather, we are proposing the requirements for detecting and repairing
leaks in subpart J, and we expect that the referencing subpart will
define clearly what equipment must comply with subpart J. Similarly, we
are not proposing that equipment in vacuum service would be exempt from
subpart J; instead, we are proposing the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements described in section IV.A.3 and section IV.B.5 of this
preamble.
We also note that when reviewing the various equipment leak
regulations, we noticed that while the requirements themselves are
similar, the regulations are not consistent in defining a leak that
must be repaired. As a specific example, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT
specifies how to handle indications of liquids dripping that you find
during a visual pump inspection, but it does not specifically say that
indications of liquids dripping is a leak. Conversely, NSPS VVa
specifically states that indications of liquids dripping is a leak and
that removing the indications of liquids dripping is considered repair
(although you are not required to conduct instrument monitoring to
confirm repair in that case).
We believe that the standards are clearer if ``repair'' is defined
based on the detection method used to identify the potential leak or
leak. For example, for a leak detected using instrument monitoring,
repair requires instrument monitoring to confirm that there is no
longer a leak, while indications of a potential leak detected using
sensory monitoring are considered repaired once you adjust or alter the
equipment to eliminate the indications of a potential leak. Therefore,
we are proposing in 40 CFR part 65, subpart H that ``repaired'' has
different, specific meanings, depending on how the leak or potential
leak is detected. We note that if you observe indications of a
potential leak (e.g., liquids dripping) during sensory monitoring and
you elect to confirm the presence of a leak through instrument
monitoring, you would be required to repair the leak only based on the
instrument monitoring definition of ``repair'' (i.e., not also based on
the sensory monitoring definition of ``repair''). Although the Level 2
EL Generic MACT interpretation and language is different from the
interpretation in NSPS VVa, we note that the substance of the proposed
requirements is essentially the same as both these current rules.
We are clarifying in this preamble that the proposed option to
maintain certain types of equipment (e.g., such as compressors, PRD,
open-ended valves and lines, and equipment in closed vent systems and
fuel gas systems) below 500 ppm above background is considered a
performance standard and not a leak definition indicating a leak
requiring repair. Therefore, the instrument monitoring that we are
proposing for those types of equipment is to confirm that the
performance standard is being met; it is not instrument monitoring to
detect a leak. Additional details regarding these proposed requirements
are provided in the equipment-specific paragraphs in section IV.B.4 of
this preamble.
[[Page 17939]]
As we reviewed the regulatory language of current equipment leak
rules, we noticed that the rules include definitions of some types of
equipment (e.g., connector, open-ended valve or line) but not others.
We request comment on whether we should add definitions of ``valve,''
``pump,'' ``agitator'' and ``compressor,'' as well as other terms that
are used throughout the proposed Uniform Standards, but not defined
(e.g., ``dual mechanical seal system''). The intended purpose of adding
definitions of these terms to 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, would not be
to make the standards more or less stringent than current standards.
Rather, the goal is to ensure that the standards are interpreted
consistently. Therefore, comments on additional definitions should
include proposed language for those definitions and describe how
defining the term would result in interpretations that are more
consistent.
The following sections describe the rationale for specific proposed
provisions.
3. How did the EPA determine that the proposed compliance requirements
of sensory monitoring for certain equipment are appropriate?
As we noted in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, most current
equipment leaks regulations include requirements for sensory
monitoring, as well as instrument monitoring using Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7. Sensory monitoring has traditionally been
required for certain equipment for which it is considered not cost
effective to require instrument monitoring, such as equipment in heavy
liquid service and equipment that is in use a very short time during
the year. Our analysis of emissions reduction techniques showed that
sensory monitoring is still necessary and appropriate for certain types
of equipment. For the specific types of equipment listed in 40 CFR
65.428, we are proposing to require sensory monitoring equivalent to
the monitoring required in the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, including
equipment in heavy liquid service, equipment in regulated material
service less than 300 hr/yr, PRD in light liquid service and
instrumentation systems.
The list also includes equipment types that may not be specified in
other rules. First, as noted in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we
determined that instrument monitoring at the baseline level (i.e.,
10,000 ppm leak definition) is the least cost effective for a plant
site with less than 1,500 total pieces of equipment, so we are
proposing to require only sensory monitoring for a plant site with less
than 1,500 total pieces of equipment. Second, we are proposing to
clarify that sensory monitoring is required for connectors in gas and
vapor service and connectors in light liquid service if the referencing
subpart does not require compliance with the instrument monitoring
provisions for connectors (40 CFR 65.422). Third, we determined that
sensory monitoring is necessary for any equipment that contains or
contacts regulated material, but is not in regulated material service.
For example, if a valve contains or contacts a light liquid process
fluid with 3-percent regulated material (i.e., less than the amount
required to be defined as ``in light liquid service''), instrument
monitoring is not cost effective and would not be required. However, if
that valve leaks, there are emissions in that release that need to be
addressed. We have determined that sensory monitoring is an appropriate
standard in that case. Fourth, we are proposing that the list of
equipment for which you are required to conduct sensory monitoring
includes any equipment for which sensory monitoring is required by a
provision in proposed 40 CFR 65.420 through 65.427. Throughout these
sections of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart J, there are exceptions to
the instrument monitoring requirements for specific types of equipment.
This proposed requirement will help to ensure operators keep an eye out
for these potential leaks without placing undue burden on the
operators. The requirement to conduct sensory monitoring for specific
types of equipment is discussed throughout the remainder of section
IV.B.4 of this preamble. Finally, we are proposing sensory monitoring
for other equipment, as required by the referencing subpart. This
provision is included partly to provide some flexibility to the
referencing subpart in defining the requirements for specific types of
equipment (based on source category-specific and subpart-specific
analyses) and partly to indicate that sensory monitoring should be the
minimum requirement for any equipment not otherwise required to conduct
instrument monitoring or meet a performance standard.
The change in format (i.e., specifying types of equipment required
to conduct sensory monitoring in one location and referencing one
section for LDAR requirements) better indicates that the level of
control for all these types of equipment is the same. In some current
equipment leak regulations, these requirements are spread throughout
the rule with minor variations in language, and it is not clear whether
the monitoring and repair requirements are intended to be identical. In
addition, as noted above, the change in format more clearly indicates
that sensory monitoring is the minimum requirement for all types of
equipment for which instrument monitoring is not required. While we
expect that sensory monitoring will continue to be specified mostly for
equipment in heavy liquid service and instrumentation systems, we
recognize that if instrument monitoring is not currently required for
other types of equipment in a specific source category, analyses may
show that it is not appropriate to begin instrument monitoring in that
specific source category. In that case, we wanted to ensure that it is
clear that you would, at a minimum, continue conducting sensory
monitoring for these pieces of equipment.
4. How did the EPA determine the proposed compliance requirements for
specific types of equipment?
Based on the analysis described in section IV.B.1 of this preamble,
we are proposing requirements mostly equivalent to the Level 2 EL
Generic MACT, as well as instrument monitoring for open-ended valves
and lines to ensure compliance with the proposed performance standard.
We are also proposing several new requirements for delay of leak
repair, including a requirement to install low leak technology when a
leaking valve or connector is repaired more than 15 days after
detection (i.e., when repair of a leaking valve or connector has been
delayed under 40 CFR 65.432(d)). We are also proposing several
clarifications (relative to the Level 2 EL Generic MACT) and new
requirements that are specific to certain types of equipment. This
section includes rationale for those clarifications and requirements,
as well as some rationale for requirements that we considered, but are
not proposing.
Valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service.
The requirements that we are proposing in 40 CFR 65.420 for valves in
gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service are
essentially the same as the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, including the
requirement to calculate the percent of valves leaking and the option
to subgroup valves for monitoring purposes. The differences between the
Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the proposed Uniform Standards are
clarifications that are described in this section.
We are proposing to clarify how to determine monitoring frequency
for valves in 40 CFR 65.420(a)(2)(i). In the
[[Page 17940]]
Level 2 EL Generic MACT, the decision point for the monitoring
frequency determinations is expressed in terms such as ``less than the
greater of 2 valves or 2 percent of the valves in a process unit.'' For
these Uniform Standards, we are proposing language similar to the HON
to clarify the terminology for this determination. We are not proposing
any changes to the procedure itself. If the number of leaking valves is
2 percent of the valves or higher, you must either monitor monthly or,
if the sum of the total valves leaking over the previous two monitoring
periods is three or less, you must monitor at least quarterly.
We are also proposing to clarify that the provision for 250 or
fewer valves in a process unit in the Level 2 EL Generic MACT is
intended to ensure that monthly monitoring is not required and that
quarterly is the most frequent monitoring required. Regardless of the
number of valves in your process unit, you may monitor valves less
frequently than quarterly if the percent leaking calculation qualifies
that process unit for less frequent monitoring.
We are proposing to clarify that you are not required to conduct
instrument monitoring for valves with a valve mechanism that is not
connected to a device that penetrates the valve housing (e.g., most
check valves). As we stated in the background information document for
NSPS VV (EPA-450/3-83-033a, November 1980), a valve that ``has no stem
or subsequent packing gland * * * is not considered to be a potential
source of fugitive emissions.'' Therefore, it is not necessary to
conduct instrument monitoring to detect leaks, and we consider this
proposed provision to be a clarification of our original intent.
However, we are proposing to require you to conduct sensory monitoring
to ensure that there are no fugitive emissions from other parts of
these types of valves.
We are proposing to retain the requirement found in many current
equipment leaks rules to limit the number of difficult-to-monitor
valves in a new source to less than 3 percent of the valves in that
source. The Uniform Standards would not define a new source; a new
source would be defined by the referencing subpart. We are also
proposing that you would not have to limit the number of difficult-to-
monitor valves in a new source (as defined by the referencing subpart)
if all of the difficult-to-monitor valves in that new source meet the
description of low leak technology (see sections IV.A.4 and IV.B.5 of
this preamble). We also considered requiring all valves in a new source
to be designed to meet the description of low leak technology (not just
those that you designate as difficult-to-monitor), unless it is
technically infeasible to do so. If we included that provision in the
Uniform Standards, we would consider removing the 3-percent restriction
on difficult-to-monitor valves in a new source, since the potential for
leaks from all of the valves would be reduced. We request comment on
the proposed provision providing the option of designing difficult-to-
monitor valves in a new source to meet the description of low leak
technology, as well as the idea of requiring all valves in a new source
to be designed to meet the description of low leak technology.
Finally, as we noted in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we
evaluated the impacts of lowering the leak definition from 500 ppm to
100 ppm for valves. Based on our analysis, we concluded that for this
proposed rule, 500 ppm is the appropriate leak definition for valves.
However, we note that our analysis was general and based on assumptions
that may not be applicable to all source categories. We expect that
when conducting the analysis to determine whether it is appropriate to
reference these Uniform Standards from each source category, we will
consider the appropriate leak definition for valves in that source
category. If the analysis shows that referencing the Uniform Standards
would be appropriate with a lower leak definition than 500 ppm for
valves, then the referencing subpart could specify that lower leak
definition and override the requirements in the Uniform Standards. We
request comment and additional data supporting a different leak
definition for valves in the Uniform Standard.
Pumps in light liquid service. The requirements that we are
proposing in 40 CFR 65.421 for pumps in light liquid service are mostly
the same as the Level 2 EL Generic MACT. Section IV.B.1 of this
preamble presents the model plant impacts of lowering the leak
definition from 10,000 ppm to 2,000 ppm for pumps in light liquid
service. We also considered additional information when determining the
appropriate level of control to propose. Specifically, data collected
through an ICR for petroleum refineries (76 FR 5804, February 2, 2011)
indicate that 93 percent of the pumps that are currently monitored for
leaks are monitored at a leak definition of 2,000 ppm. We did
reorganize the sections slightly and revise the language relative to
the Level 2 EL Generic MACT to better indicate the similarity between
the provisions for pumps and agitators. Other differences between the
Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the proposed Uniform Standards are
described in this section.
We are proposing to maintain the leak definition of 5,000 ppm for
pumps handling polymerizing monomers. This leak definition was set
nearly 20 years ago, during the development of the HON, based on the
argument that since mechanical seals cannot be used on pumps handling
polymerizing monomers, these pumps cannot achieve a 2,000-ppm leak
performance level. We request comment and any available data either to
support maintaining the 5,000-ppm leak definition for pumps handling
polymerizing monomers or to support lowering the leak definition for
pumps handling polymerizing monomers.
We are proposing to include the Level 2 EL Generic MACT
requirements for weekly inspections of pumps subject to 40 CFR 65.421,
including dual mechanical seal pumps. Like the Level 2 EL Generic MACT,
we are proposing that if you find indications of liquids dripping
during a weekly inspection, you could choose whether to repair the
pump, eliminating those indications of liquids dripping or conduct
instrument monitoring to determine if there is a leak. We are proposing
to add a requirement that if you choose to repair the pump to eliminate
the potential leak rather than conducting instrument monitoring, you
would be required to do so before the next weekly inspection. This
limit of time is similar to the 5 days allowed to repair equipment
subject to sensory monitoring requirements. However, if we required
repair within 5 days of detection and the next weekly inspection
occurred less than 5 days after the inspection in which you observed
the indications of liquids dripping (see the ``reasonable interval''
provisions in the General Provisions), then you would presumably
continue to see the indications of liquids dripping that you are
already planning to eliminate, and that weekly inspection would not
provide any new information. We request comment on the amount of time
provided to repair pumps with indications of liquids dripping.
We are also proposing an additional clarification regarding weekly
inspections for pumps consistent with NSPS VVa. The aim of an LDAR
program is to find and repair leaks. In some instances, the liquids
found dripping from pumps are not leaks; for example, the liquids could
simply be condensation from the atmosphere. Therefore, we are proposing
to clarify in 40 CFR 65.421(c), consistent with NSPS VVa, that if you
see liquids dripping during a weekly inspection, you choose to conduct
instrument monitoring and
[[Page 17941]]
the instrument reading shows that the pump is not leaking, then for
subsequent weekly inspections, you would not be required to conduct
instrument monitoring when you find indications of liquids dripping, as
long as the characteristics of the liquids dripping have not changed
since the last weekly inspection. You would continue to conduct the
weekly inspection, record the results, and conduct the monthly
instrument monitoring, as required in proposed 40 CFR 65.421(a). Note,
however, that if you repair the pump, then the clock would ``reset''
regarding the weekly inspections. In other words, if monthly instrument
monitoring indicates that a leak has developed, then you would be
required to repair the leak, and the next time you notice indications
of liquids dripping during a weekly inspection, you would be required
to choose whether to repair the potential leak or conduct instrument
monitoring to determine if there is a leak.
We note that persistent liquids dripping may indicate an operation
problem that should be addressed by maintenance. If indications of
liquids dripping are noted for one pump during multiple weekly
inspections, we encourage you to ensure that the pump is operating
properly.
We are not proposing to require you to implement a quality
improvement program (QIP) for pumps. In the Level 2 EL Generic MACT,
you are required to implement a QIP if ``at least the greater of either
10 percent of the pumps in a process unit or three pumps'' are leaking.
However, evaluation of compliance with current rules that include these
provisions has shown that these provisions are complicated and rarely
used. We request comment on whether there is need to include QIP
provisions for pumps in these Uniform Standards. We also request
comment on whether we should substitute the QIP provisions with a
similar, but more straightforward requirement. For example, we could
include a requirement that if 10 percent of the pumps in a process
leak, you would have to replace a certain percentage of those pumps
with dual mechanical seal pumps within a set amount of time. A
provision like this would achieve similar goals to the QIP, but would
be much simpler to understand and implement.
As we noted in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we evaluated the
impacts of lowering the leak definition from 2,000 ppm to 500 ppm for
pumps. Based on our analysis, we concluded that for this proposed rule,
2,000 ppm is the appropriate leak definition for pumps. However, as
with valves, our analyses were general and were based on assumptions
that may not be applicable to all source categories that could
reference these Uniform Standards. We expect that when conducting the
analysis to determine whether it is appropriate to reference these
Uniform Standards from each source category, we will consider the
appropriate leak definitions for pumps. If the analysis shows that
referencing the Uniform Standards would be appropriate with a lower
leak definition for pumps, then the referencing subpart can specify the
lower level and override the requirements in the Uniform Standards. We
request comment and additional data supporting a different leak
definition for pumps in the Uniform Standard.
Connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid
service. We note that the analysis described in section VI.B.1 of this
preamble showed that the cost effectiveness of requiring instrument
monitoring for connectors varies widely, depending on the number of
connectors in each model. In addition, as noted previously in this
section, our analysis was general and based on assumptions that may not
be applicable to all source categories. Therefore, it is possible that
instrument monitoring of connectors could be more cost effective on a
nationwide basis for a source category in which a majority of the
affected process units has a large number of connectors. As a result,
we determined that the best approach was to include the provisions for
instrument monitoring of connectors in the proposed Uniform Standards,
but to leave the decision of whether to require instrument monitoring
of connectors in gas and vapor service and instrument monitoring of
connectors in light liquid service up to the rulemakings for the
referencing subparts.
We expect that we will estimate the costs and emissions reduction
impacts of the Uniform Standards for each potential referencing
subpart. At that time, we will evaluate the necessary factors
(including cost effectiveness, if appropriate) and determine whether to
require instrument monitoring for connectors. By including the
connector monitoring provisions in the Uniform Standards, we can ensure
that the instrument monitoring provisions for connectors will be
consistent with the instrument monitoring provisions for other
equipment in the Uniform Standards if we determine in the future that
instrument monitoring of connectors is appropriate for a particular
source category.
Therefore, we are proposing that you would conduct instrument
monitoring for connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in
light liquid service, as in Level 2 EL Generic MACT, only if required
by your referencing subpart. We did rearrange the paragraphs and make
small clarifications to the language, but aside from specifying in the
Uniform Standards that connector monitoring and repair is required only
if specified by your referencing subpart, there are no substantive
differences between the connector requirements in the Level 2 EL
Generic MACT and the connector requirements proposed in the Uniform
Standards. The differences between the Level 2 EL Generic MACT and the
proposed Uniform Standards are described in this section. We request
comment on whether there are other requirements for connectors that we
should consider.
If your referencing subpart does require connector monitoring, we
are proposing two requirements to clarify that the connector
requirements are analogous to the requirements for valves. First,
connector monitoring data generated less than 12 months before a
process unit becomes subject to this subpart would be allowed in
determining monitoring frequency (as well as counting as the initial
monitoring for connectors). Second, the monitoring that you are
required to perform after repairing a leaking connector and within 90
days of detecting the leak is not the same monitoring that you must
perform to meet the definition of ``repair.''
Finally, we are proposing to limit the types of connectors that can
be classified as ``inaccessible'' connectors in 40 CFR 65.416(b). We
are not proposing to include connectors that cannot be reached without
elevating personnel (as in the Level 2 EL Generic MACT). These
connectors would already be classified as difficult-to-monitor
connectors under proposed 40 CFR 65.416(a)(2). In addition, we are not
specifically including connectors that cannot be accessed at any time
in a safe manner to perform monitoring. Instead, we consider these
connectors to be classified as unsafe-to-monitor under proposed 40 CFR
65.416(a)(1). See section IV.B.5 of this preamble for additional detail
about unsafe-to-monitor and difficult-to-monitor equipment.
Agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in light liquid
service. The requirements that we are proposing in 40 CFR 65.423 for
agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in light liquid
service are mostly the same as both the Level 1 EL Generic MACT and
[[Page 17942]]
the Level 2 EL Generic MACT. We did reorganize the sections slightly
and revise the language relative to the Level 2 EL Generic MACT to
indicate more clearly the similarity between the provisions for pumps
and agitators. We are also proposing to include the Level 2 EL Generic
MACT requirements for weekly inspections of agitators subject to 40 CFR
65.423 with clarifications identical to those described in section
IV.B.4 of this preamble for pumps in light liquid service.
Given the similarities between pumps and agitators in design,
operation and current regulatory requirements, we considered lowering
the leak definition for agitators from 10,000 ppm. However, we do not
currently have sufficient data on agitator monitoring to conduct such
an analysis. We request comment and additional data supporting either
maintaining the leak definition at 10,000 ppm or lowering the leak
definition.
PRD. We are proposing to require that all PRD in gas or vapor
service be operated with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background. No later than 5 days after the PRD begins operating
in regulated material service again following a pressure release, you
would be required to conduct instrument monitoring to demonstrate that
the PRD is once again in compliance with the requirement to operate
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background. We
note that the Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes a similar standard for
PRD in gas and vapor service to operate at 500 ppm above background.
In addition, your referencing subpart may specify that no releases
are allowed from any PRD, as release events from PRD have the potential
to emit large quantities of regulated material. In that case, it is
important to identify and control any releases in a timely manner.
Therefore, if your referencing subpart specifies that no releases be
allowed from your PRD, we are proposing to require you to install
electronic indicators on each PRD that would be able to identify and
record the time and duration of each pressure release. In addition to
ensuring that significant releases are addressed, these requirements
will also alert operators to any operational problems with the PRD seal
that could be resulting in emissions to the atmosphere. (We are also
proposing that if your electronic indicator can measure the
concentration of any flow through the PRD, such that it is capable of
verifying that the PRD has reseated properly after any release, you
would not be required to conduct additional instrument monitoring to
verify that the PRD is operating below 500 ppm above background
following a pressure release. You would still be required to keep a
record of the concentration provided by this monitor to demonstrate
that the concentration is less than 500 ppm above background.)
We request comment on the proposed requirements, including whether
the PRD in liquid service should be required to meet the 500-ppm
performance standard rather than conducting sensory monitoring. We also
request comment on other approaches we could take to reduce leaks and
manage releases from PRD.
Compressors. We are proposing that compressors either (1) be
equipped with a seal system or (2) be maintained at a condition
indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background. We did rearrange the paragraphs and make small
clarifications to the language, but there are few substantive
differences between the compressor requirements in the Level 2 EL
Generic MACT and the compressor requirements proposed in the Uniform
Standards. One of these differences is for compressors complying with
40 CFR 65.425(a). While the compressor seal is the most likely part of
the compressor to leak, it is possible to have small leaks from other
parts of the compressor. Therefore, we are requiring sensory monitoring
for potential sources of VOC emissions other than the seal system.
As noted in section IV.B.2 of this preamble, we are clarifying that
the proposed alternative to maintain compressors at an instrument
reading below 500 ppm above background is considered a performance
standard. We did consider specifying a time frame for repair if you
monitor the compressor and get an instrument reading above 500 ppm.
However, we determined that since the instrument reading above 500 ppm
is a deviation from the standard and not a leak, we should not allow a
set number of days for repair or allow delay of repair. Instead, the
deviation for that compressor would be continued until you return the
compressor to a condition indicated by an instrument reading less than
500 ppm above background. To encourage you to take action as soon as
possible to return the compressor to compliance, we are proposing to
require that you must provide in your semiannual periodic report the
date of the instrument reading 500 ppm above background or greater and
the date of the next instrument reading less than 500 ppm above
background (i.e., the number of days that the deviation lasted) for
each compressor. We request comment on whether there are other
requirements for compressors that we should consider.
Sampling connection systems. We are proposing requirements for
sampling connection systems that are similar to NSPS VVa, including
arranging the paragraphs of 40 CFR 65.426 for clarity. In addition, we
realize that when collecting gas samples, the tubing or pipe between
the valves on the sample container and in the closed-loop system will
contain process gas. This trapped gas does not need to be collected or
captured because it is not a purged process fluid. Therefore,
consistent with NSPS VVa, we are specifying that you would not be
required to collect or capture gases remaining in the tubing or piping
between the closed-purge system valve(s) and sample container valves(s)
after the valves are closed and the sample container is disconnected.
We are also proposing to allow you to collect and recycle the
purged process fluid to a process, consistent with NSPS VVa. We are
proposing to add this option in 40 CFR 65.426(a)(4) for design of the
closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent system because the Level 2 EL
Generic MACT requirement to return the purged process fluid
``directly'' to a process line could be interpreted to mean that you
could not route the process fluid to a process using any method other
than direct piping. We intend that use of the word ``collect'' in this
proposed option means the purged fluid should not be allowed to escape.
The use of either containers or piping would be an acceptable means of
complying with this option. Consistent with the Level 2 EL Generic
MACT, we are also proposing to allow you to collect and recycle the
purged process fluid to a fuel gas system that meets the requirements
of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M.
We are proposing to clarify through the definition of ``sampling
connection system'' in proposed 40 CFR 65.295 that lines that convey
samples to analyzers and analyzer bypass lines are considered part of
sampling connection systems. You would be required to meet the same
requirements for the purged process fluid in these lines that you are
required to meet for other purged process fluids. We are also
clarifying that, for the purposes of this provision, CEMS are not
considered analyzers, as they are typically located on stacks and are
analyzing emissions rather than process fluids.
Finally, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes three options for
collecting, storing and transporting purged process fluids, and
consistent with NSPS VVa, we are proposing to add two other options in
40 CFR 65.426(a)(4)(iv).
[[Page 17943]]
Specifically, we are proposing to allow you to collect, store and
transport the purged process fluid to a device used to burn off-
specification used oil for energy recovery in accordance with 40 CFR
part 279, subpart G, because the combustion operation will result in
destruction levels comparable to the other options. We are also
proposing to allow you to collect, store and transport the purged
process fluid to a waste management unit subject to and operated in
compliance with the treatment requirements of 40 CFR 61.348(a) because
waste management units meeting the treatment requirements in 40 CFR
61.348(a) and the management requirements in 40 CFR 61.343 through
61.347 must achieve emission suppression and treatment requirements
similar to the requirements for group 1 streams in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G, which was already provided as an option in the Level 2 EL
Generic MACT.
However, the Level 2 EL Generic MACT includes an exception to the
option to collect, store and transport the purged process fluid to a
waste management unit that is operated in compliance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G that we are not proposing,
consistent with NSPS VVa. Specifically, we are not proposing to allow
you to transport purged process fluid that contains regulated material
to a waste management unit that has a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit instead of to a waste management unit
operated in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
G, applicable to group 1 wastewater steams because NPDES permits do not
require suppression from the wastewater treatment system. Therefore,
the emissions from the purged process fluid would not be controlled
adequately if we allowed you to send purged process fluid to a waste
management unit that has a NPDES permit.
Open-ended valves and lines. Like the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, the
proposed requirements for open-ended valves and lines specify that,
except in certain situations, each open-ended valve or line shall be
equipped with a cap, plug, blind flange or a second valve that seals
the open-ended valve or line. As noted in section IV.B.1 of this
preamble, inspections conducted by enforcement agencies have found that
many of these closure devices are leaking due to factors such as
improper installation. Therefore, we are proposing to require annual
instrument monitoring of the cap, plug, blind flange or second valve to
demonstrate that it seals the open-ended valve or line. An instrument
reading of 500 ppm above background or greater would indicate that the
open-ended valve or line is not sealed. Similar to the alternative
standard for compressors, we did consider specifying a time frame for
repair for an instrument reading of 500 ppm above background or
greater. However, we determined that, since the instrument reading of
500 ppm above background or greater indicates a deviation from the
standard for the cap, plug, blind flange or second valve to seal the
open-ended valve or line rather than the presence of a leak, we
determined that it would not be appropriate to provide a set number of
days for repair or allow delay of repair. Instead, we expect you to
take action as soon as possible to properly seal the open-ended valve
or line with the cap, plug, blind flange or second valve and obtain an
instrument reading less than 500 ppm above background, and we are
proposing to require that you must provide in your semiannual periodic
report the date of the instrument reading 500 ppm above background or
greater and the date of the next instrument reading less than 500 ppm
above background (i.e., the number of days the deviation lasted) for
each open-ended valve or line. We request comment on the appropriate
requirements for open-ended valves and lines, including any additional
data either supporting the proposed requirements or demonstrating that
we should consider different requirements.
We are proposing to require sensory monitoring for open-ended
valves and lines containing materials that would auto catalytically
polymerize or would present an explosion, serious overpressure or other
safety hazard if capped or equipped with a double block and bleed
system. These open-ended valves and lines are exempt from the
requirement to install a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve
because of the risk of serious overpressure leading to catastrophic
failure and, potentially, greater emissions to the atmosphere than if
the line is left uncapped. However, we do believe that it is
appropriate to require sensory monitoring in this case, as indications
of a potential leak from the open-ended valve or line could indicate a
leak in the seal of the open-ended valve.
In addition, we are proposing a few clarifications to the
definition of ``open-ended valve or line.'' First, we recognize that
the literal interpretation of the phrase ``one side of the valve seat
in contact with process fluid and one side open to atmosphere, either
directly or through open piping'' could lead you to the inaccurate
conclusion that once you install a cap, plug, blind flange or second
valve on the open-ended valve or line, you no longer have one side of
the valve seat open to the atmosphere, so it is no longer an ``open-
ended valve or line.'' However, that is not our intended
interpretation. Instead, we consider an open-ended valve or line with a
cap, plug, blind flange or second valve to be a controlled open-ended
valve or line. Therefore, we are proposing to clarify that an open-
ended valve or line with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve on
the side that would be otherwise open to the atmosphere is still
considered an open-ended valve or line. Second, we are adding the words
``any length of'' to that phrase, so it reads ``or one side open to
atmosphere, either directly or through any length of open piping.''
This proposed language clarifies that a valve with one side of the
valve seat open to the atmosphere through a very long length of pipe is
still considered an open-ended valve or line.
Equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems. Current
equipment leak rules are not always consistent regarding regulation of
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems. We expect that
closed vent systems and fuel gas systems transport gaseous streams to
control devices or combustion devices, respectively, without releases
to the atmosphere. Therefore, we are proposing to specify that
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems operate with an
instrument reading below 500 ppm above background. Similar to
compressors, PRD and open-ended valves and lines, we are proposing to
require annual instrument monitoring of the equipment in closed vent
systems and fuel gas systems to demonstrate that it operates with an
instrument reading below 500 ppm above background. An instrument
reading of 500 ppm above background or greater would be a deviation.
Similar to the alternative standard for compressors, we did
consider specifying a time frame for repair for an instrument reading
of 500 ppm above background or greater. However, we determined that
since the instrument reading of 500 ppm above background or greater
indicates a deviation from the standard rather than the presence of a
leak, we determined that it would not be appropriate to provide a set
number of days for repair or allow delay of repair. Instead, we expect
you to take action as soon as possible to return the equipment to an
instrument reading less than 500 ppm above background. We are proposing
to require that you must provide in your semiannual periodic report,
the date of
[[Page 17944]]
the instrument reading 500 ppm above background or greater and the date
of the next instrument reading less than 500 ppm above background
(i.e., the number of days that the deviation lasted) for each piece of
equipment in a closed vent system or fuel gas system. We request
comment on the appropriate requirements for equipment in closed vent
systems and fuel gas systems, including data either supporting the
proposed requirements or demonstrating that we should consider
different requirements.
5. How did the EPA determine the proposed general compliance
requirements for equipment leaks?
We are proposing several general clarifications and new
requirements that are not specific to certain types of equipment. These
clarifications and new requirements are described below.
Equipment in vacuum service. In the Level 2 EL Generic MACT,
equipment in vacuum service is exempt from all of the LDAR
requirements, including recordkeeping and reporting. In the Uniform
Standards, we are proposing to require demonstration that equipment is
in vacuum service in 40 CFR 65.416(e), including installation of a
pressure gauge and alarm system that will alert an operator immediately
and automatically when the pressure is such that the equipment no
longer meets the definition of in vacuum service. While we continue to
agree that monitoring the equipment in vacuum service for leaks is not
necessary, we do find that it is appropriate for you to demonstrate
continuously that your equipment is in vacuum service.
Equipment that is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor. The provisions
for equipment that is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor are largely the
same as the Level 2 EL Generic MACT. We are proposing to clarify that
equipment of any type for which you are required to conduct instrument
monitoring may be designated as unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor if they
meet the appropriate conditions in 40 CFR 65.416(a)(1) or (2). The
Level 2 EL Generic MACT limited difficult-to-monitor equipment to
valves and agitators, and we found no technical feasibility reason that
you should not be permitted to designate pumps and connectors as
difficult-to-monitor, as well. We are also proposing to clarify that
the written monitoring plans required in 40 CFR 65.416(a)(4) must
address repair of any leaks you find when you conduct instrument
monitoring according to the plan.
Finally, we evaluated the provisions for inaccessible connectors,
and we determined that two of the provisions are more appropriately
classified as factors that make the connector either difficult-to-
monitor or unsafe-to-monitor. In addition, we saw no reason why these
provisions should be limited to connectors rather than applicable to
all equipment. Therefore, we are proposing to add ``equipment that you
cannot access without the use of a motorized man-lift basket in areas
where an ignition potential exists'' and ``equipment in near proximity
to hazards such as electrical lines'' to the list of examples of
unsafe-to-monitor equipment in proposed 40 CFR 65.416(a).
Sensory monitoring. Consistent with the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, if
your equipment is subject to sensory monitoring requirements and you
find evidence of a potential leak, we are proposing in 40 CFR 65.430(b)
that you would be required either to use instrument monitoring to
determine if there is a leak needing repair or to repair the equipment,
eliminating the evidence of the potential leak. We are also proposing
in 40 CFR 65.430(b)(1) to add a limit to the amount of time you would
have to repair the equipment (i.e., eliminate the evidence of a
potential leak) to 5 days after detection, which is consistent with
NSPS VVa.
Monitoring instrument calibration. Consistent with the Level 2 EL
Generic MACT, we are proposing that you would calibrate the monitoring
instrument with zero air and methane in air. However, we have received
information that while methane in air is commonly used to calibrate
flame ionization detector (FID)-based instruments, methane is not
appropriate for calibrating photo ionization detector (PID)-based
instruments. The other calibration gas provided in NSPS VV and NSPS
VVa, n-hexane in air, is difficult to find, as 10,000 ppm n-hexane in
air is close to the lower explosive limit. Instead, many users of PID-
based monitoring instruments use isobutylene as the calibration gas
because the response factor of isobutylene is representative of most of
the gases they expect to encounter. Therefore, we are proposing to
allow isobutylene in air as a calibration gas. Again, consistent with
the Level 2 EL Generic MACT, we are proposing that if the instrument
does not respond to methane or isobutylene, you may use another
compound in air to calibrate the instrument, so the calibration
procedures continue to be flexible. We request comment on whether
isobutylene in air is an appropriate calibration gas and whether the
use of other calibration gases is widespread enough that they should be
included.
To ensure that the monitoring results are as accurate as possible,
we are also proposing in 40 CFR 65.431(a)(3)(ii) to require a
calibration drift assessment similar to the requirements in NSPS VVa.
At a minimum, you would be required to perform a calibration drift
assessment at the end of each monitoring day. Post-test calibration
drift assessments constitute good practice and are a useful quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) tool to validate the proper operation
of the monitor during the monitoring period and, hence, the measurement
data. We note that the proposed requirement for a calibration drift
assessment is not an effort to make the method more accurate than was
originally intended; it is intended as an additional quality assurance
check.
As proposed, you would be required to check the instrument with the
same calibration gases as before use and calculate the percent
difference from the most recent calibration value. If the drift
assessment shows a negative drift of more than 10 percent, then you
would have to calculate the leak definition adjusted for negative drift
and re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration with
instrument readings below the applicable leak definition and above the
leak definition adjusted for negative drift. For example, if your leak
definition is 500 ppm and you calculated the negative drift to be 15
percent, you would calculate the leak definition adjusted for negative
drift as 425 ppm, and you would have to re-monitor equipment with
instrument readings above 425 ppm and below 500 ppm to confirm that
those pieces of equipment are not leaking. If the drift assessment
shows a positive drift of more than 10 percent, then you would have the
option to re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration
with instrument readings above the applicable leak definition and above
the leak definition adjusted for positive drift. Using the same
example, you would calculate the leak definition adjusted for negative
drift as 575 ppm, and you could elect to re-monitor equipment with
instrument readings above 500 ppm and below 575 ppm to show that those
pieces of equipment are not actually leaking.
Delay of repair. We are proposing a limit on the amount of time you
can delay repair of leaking equipment in 40 CFR 65.432(d). We agree
that there are times when repair will be technically infeasible without
a process unit shutdown, and we are not proposing to require immediate
shutdown to accomplish those repairs. However, we are aware that some
process units shut
[[Page 17945]]
down very infrequently, allowing equipment to continue leaking for many
years. Therefore, we are proposing to specify that you may only delay
repair up to the end of the next process unit shutdown or up to 5 years
after the leak is detected, whichever is sooner. We believe that a
limit of no more than 5 years will allow you to schedule repairs during
a planned process unit shutdown while preventing repair from being
delayed indefinitely. We request comment on the limit of 5 years; for
comments supporting a longer amount of time, we request supporting
documentation and examples demonstrating why a longer amount of time is
necessary.
We are also proposing that if you have a process unit shutdown of
longer than 24 hours, planned or unplanned, you would take the time
during that shutdown to repair all equipment for which you delayed
repair until the next process unit shutdown. We expect that you would
purchase the supplies needed to repair the leaks when the leaks are
first detected so that you would be prepared to make repairs during an
unplanned shutdown. You would not be required to begin making repairs
until the shutdown lasts 24 hours, but you would be required to extend
the shutdown until all equipment for which you delayed repair until the
next shutdown have been repaired. You would not be required to repair
leaks detected less than 15 days before the shutdown. While we expect
that you would have ordered the supplies needed for repair, they may
not arrive in less than 15 days. In addition, the delay of repair
requirements are intended for equipment that cannot be repaired in 15
days, so it is not reasonable to expect that you will always know in
less than 15 days that a leak cannot be repaired without a process unit
shutdown. We request comment on requiring repairs during any shutdown
longer than 24 hours.
We are clarifying that you would continue to conduct instrument
monitoring on the schedule required by 40 CFR 65.420 through 65.427
while repair of the leak is delayed. The current equipment leaks
requirements do not specify clearly that monitoring may be suspended,
but we are aware that some owners and operators have interpreted the
current regulations to mean that monitoring is not required. However,
continuing to conduct instrument monitoring while repair is delayed
provides information about the magnitude of the leak during that time.
If the leak grows significantly over time, you may determine that it is
appropriate to reschedule the next shutdown to repair the leak sooner.
You would not be required to report the results of the continued
monitoring, but you would be required to keep records of those results.
We are also proposing that for a pump or agitator for which you have
delayed repair, you may suspend the weekly inspection until the pump or
agitator is repaired.
Finally, we are proposing that unless it is technically infeasible
for you to do so, when you do repair valves and connectors for which
you delayed repair, you must replace leaking valves and connectors with
low leak technology (e.g., replacing the valve packing, flange gaskets
or the entire valve or connector). While it is not cost effective to
require replacement of all equipment at one time, requiring replacement
for equipment that cannot be repaired within 15 days would give you
time to plan the repair and purchase the necessary supplies or
equipment. In addition, experience has shown that these techniques
result in a longer period of time before that specific piece of
equipment leaks again, so you would have fewer leaks in the process and
likely would be able to take advantage of the less frequent monitoring
allowed for valves and connectors. In addition, over time, you would be
required to conduct fewer repairs, reducing the cost and time necessary
to repair leaks. These cost reductions are expected to offset the
increases in capital cost associated with the low leak technology
(estimated to be about 10 to 35 percent for valves; see the
presentation ``Low Leak Valve and Valve Packing Technology (Low-E
Valve)'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869).
We recognize that there are situations where replacing the packing,
gaskets or entire piece of equipment may not be technically feasible.
In that case, you would be required to document the demonstration that
such repair was technically infeasible and include the documentation in
your annual periodic report. We are proposing that you would be
required to evaluate this demonstration each time you delay repair for
a piece of equipment. For example, suppose you previously determined
that it was technically infeasible to install low leak technology to
repair a valve for which you delayed repair. If that valve leaks again
in the future and you have to delay repair beyond 15 days again, you
would be required to demonstrate that it is still technically
infeasible to install low leak technology to repair a valve; you cannot
simply refer to your previous determination. We request comment on this
proposed requirement, including whether there are other times that we
should require installation of low leak technology and whether we
should provide specific circumstances for which installation of low
leak technology would not be required due to technical infeasibility
(and if so, what those circumstances should be).
We note that, as we stated in the preamble to the proposed
amendments to NSPS VV (71 FR 65302, November 7, 2006), sealant
injection procedures such as drill and tap methods have advanced in
recent years to the point that they are a viable on-line repair
technique for many leaking valves. Therefore, we are again clarifying
in this proposal that if sealant injection procedures such as drill and
tap are a technically feasible type of repair for a specific valve,
then those procedures should be attempted before you determine that it
is necessary to delay repair for that valve.
6. How did the EPA determine the requirements for the alternative
compliance options for equipment leaks?
Alternative for batch operations. The proposed requirements for the
alternative compliance option for batch operations are essentially the
same as the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.1036(c) of the Level 2
EL Generic MACT. The proposed requirements include the option to elect
adjusted monitoring frequencies for process units that operate
infrequently, but we are also proposing to specify the minimum amount
of time, or ``reasonable intervals,'' between monitoring events
consistent with NSPS VVa. Section VI.B of this preamble discusses the
rationale for including reasonable intervals in these Uniform
Standards, and the reasonable intervals are specified in proposed 40
CFR 65.280 (the General Provisions to the Uniform Standards). We
request comment on the reasonable intervals specific to the alternative
compliance option for batch operations.
Alternative for routing equipment leak emissions to a closed vent
system and control device or to a fuel gas system. The Level 2 EL
Generic MACT includes exceptions from instrument monitoring or other
standards if you route emissions from leaks of certain types of
equipment directly to a fuel gas system or to a control device via a
closed vent system. We considered including these provisions as a
centralized alternative compliance option in the Uniform Standards.
However, we believe that these options have limited applicability. For
example, only certain types of equipment and seals physically can be
routed directly to a closed vent system or fuel gas system. Therefore,
we have
[[Page 17946]]
elected to provide the provisions where they are the most directly
applicable (i.e., with the other monitoring requirements or performance
standards for that type of equipment). Specifically, we are proposing
that PRD that release through a closed vent system to a control device
would not be required to be operated at less than 500 ppm above
background because any vapors released with an instrument reading
higher than 500 ppm would be controlled by the control device.
Similarly, the proposed Uniform Standards provide a compliance option
consistent with the Level 2 Generic MACT for dual mechanical seal
pumps, dual mechanical seal agitators and compressor seal systems
routed to a fuel gas system or through a closed vent system to a
control device. If you use a closed vent system and non-flare control
device or a fuel gas system to meet the requirements of this subpart,
we are proposing that both the closed vent system and non-flare control
device or the fuel gas system, as applicable, must comply with the
applicable standards of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M. In
addition, consistent with the Level 2 Generic MACT, we are specifying
that a non-flare control device must reduce regulated material
emissions reductions by 95 percent or to an outlet concentration of 20
ppmv and we are requiring a design evaluation or performance test, as
specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M for the non-flare
control device. We are proposing that flares used to comply with the
applicable standard meet the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart
A, as well as proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M for the closed vent
system associated with the flare.
However, we are not proposing the alternative to route equipment
leaks from other pumps and agitators to a fuel gas system or through a
closed vent system to a control device. Based on our information, we
believe the alternative is rarely, if ever, used for these types of
equipment. We request comment on specific situations for which this
alternative would apply, particularly from any owners and operators
complying with a similar alternative under current equipment leak
standards.
Alternative for enclosing a process unit and routing equipment leak
emissions to a closed vent system and control device. The Level 2 EL
Generic MACT includes exceptions from instrument monitoring if you
enclose a process unit or portion of a process unit and vent the
equipment leak emissions through a closed vent system to a control
device. We considered including these provisions as alternative
compliance options as part of the Uniform Standards. However, we
believe that these options have limited applicability, and we expect
that the types of processes an owner or operator might choose to
enclose would be limited, based on factors such as the process fluid
characteristics (i.e., the owner or operator likely would not elect to
enclose all processes at a facility). Therefore, we are not proposing
any alternatives or exceptions based on enclosing process units and
routing equipment leaks through a closed vent system to a control
device. We request comment on this decision, including examples of
specific situations in which that alternative would be most likely to
apply.
Alternative for routing emissions to the process. We are not
proposing specific provisions for routing emissions from equipment
leaks to a process. Instead, we are clarifying through this preamble
that the line routing the emissions to the process would be considered
part of the process and would be required to comply with the otherwise
applicable provisions.
Alternative for pressure testing. We are not proposing to include
the alternative compliance option for pressure testing that is in the
Level 2 EL Generic MACT. Based on the results of comparative testing
and observations, we have concerns that the pressure-testing
alternative may not be equivalent to the otherwise applicable LDAR
requirements. Therefore, we have decided not to include that
alternative in these Uniform Standards. If there is a specific source
category for which the pressure-testing alternative is appropriate, we
expect that the referencing subpart for that source category would
include the provisions for that alternative.
Requesting an alternative means of emission limitation. The Level 2
EL Generic MACT includes specific procedures for requesting an
alternative means of emission limitation not already included within
that subpart. However, the provisions in the Level 2 EL Generic MACT
provisions are fairly general, and there is nothing specific to
requesting an alternative means of emission limitation for equipment
leaks in the provisions. Therefore, after reviewing these provisions,
the CAA and the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part
63, we have decided not to propose those provisions within 40 CFR part
65, subpart J. We are proposing to include provisions within the
General Provisions to the Uniform Standards (40 CFR part 65, subpart H)
for requesting an alternative means of emission limitation. See section
VI.B.11 of this preamble for additional details on these provisions.
7. How did the EPA determine the requirements for using the optical gas
imaging device to detect leaks?
As noted in section IV.A.5 of this preamble, we anticipate that for
some source categories, specific requirements for using an optical gas
imaging device to detect leaks without accompanying instrument
monitoring could be an appropriate alternative to the requirements
described in section IV.A.4 of this preamble. Therefore, we are
proposing to allow the use of optical gas imaging as a standalone
technique for detecting equipment leaks in regulated material service.
However, as we also noted in section IV.A.5 of this preamble, we
believe that this technique is not currently suitable for detection of
leaking compounds in all industry sectors, in part, due to the
limitation of the number of compounds that can be screened using this
technology. Therefore, we are proposing that the provisions for use of
an optical gas imaging instrument for leak detection would be allowed
as an alternative only if your referencing subpart includes a direct
reference to 40 CFR 65.450. We expect that a referencing subpart will
include a direct reference to 40 CFR 65.450 only if it is technically
feasible for the sources in that source category to follow the protocol
proposed in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. Structuring the requirements in
this way ensures that the optical gas imaging techniques are applied
consistently over the various source categories, but provides the
referencing subpart the flexibility to define clearly when the optical
gas imaging provisions may be used.
We are proposing to include a monitoring frequency of bimonthly and
a leak detection level of 60 grams per hour in the Uniform Standards
that would apply if the referencing subpart allows you to use the
optical gas imaging alternative, but does not specify a monitoring
frequency and/or leak detection level. We believe that the appropriate
monitoring frequency and leak detection level for a given source
category is likely to vary depending on the regulated material and
other industry-specific factors. However, we currently do not have data
to support setting different parameters, so we are proposing to set the
levels in the Uniform Standards consistent with the AWP. Unless and
until industry-specific and regulated material-specific data can be
gathered using the optical gas imaging instrument, it is not reasonable
to expect each referencing subpart to set
[[Page 17947]]
a source category-specific monitoring frequency and leak detection
level. However, if data are available, the referencing subpart can
include a specific monitoring frequency and/or leak detection level
other than those set in the Uniform Standards.
V. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed 40 CFR Part 65 National
Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices--Subpart M
A. Summary
This section summarizes the requirements proposed under 40 CFR part
65, subpart M in this action. The proposed requirements summarized in
this section are based on the EPA's review of current regulations for
closed vent systems; control devices used to control process vents from
reactors, distillation and other operations, as well as from emissions
from storage vessels, transfer and equipment leaks; and fuel gas
systems used for air emissions control. These requirements reflect our
intent to implement a simplified approach to rulemaking that results in
consistent requirements for these emission points across multiple
source categories. Subpart M consolidates and simplifies monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements from current NSPS and NESHAP,
eliminates duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome requirements and
examines advances in control practices and technology that could be
considered for control options in future rulemakings.
In section V of this preamble, the term ``we'' refers to the EPA
and the term ``you'' refers to owners and operators of sources affected
by the proposed standards. Section V.B of this preamble provides our
rationale for the proposed requirements in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M.
Additionally, ``subpart M'' refers to proposed 40 CFR part 65, Subpart
M.
1. What is the purpose of the proposed rule?
The proposed rule specifies requirements for closed vent systems
collecting regulated materials from a regulated source under the
referencing subpart; control devices that are used to reduce regulated
material emissions from emission points affected by a subpart that
references the use of subpart M, including small boilers and process
heaters, oxidizers, absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, biofilters,
fabric filters, sorbent injection and other control devices; and fuel
gas systems used to meet the air emission control requirements of a
referencing subpart. The owner or operator would use subpart M to
comply with emission standards for any emission unit type (e.g.,
process vents, transfer racks, storage tanks and equipment leaks) for
which emissions are routed to a control device or fuel gas system.
2. What are the proposed general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
General requirements. Facilities would be subject to some or all of
the requirements of subpart M when another subpart references the use
of subpart M for air emission control, or when directed by another
subpart under the Uniform Standards. You would be required to meet the
general provisions applicable to part 65 (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR
part 65) and the general provisions applicable to the referencing
subpart (i.e., subpart A of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63).
General requirements for halogenated vent streams. As part of the
general requirements for proposed subpart M, you would be required to
identify each emission stream as either a halogenated or non-
halogenated vent stream for purposes of determining which requirements
of subpart M apply to each vent stream.
3. What are the proposed requirements for closed vent systems?
We are proposing to require that all owners and operators using a
control device to comply with a referencing subpart meet the
requirements for closed vent systems. For a closed vent system that
contains bypass lines that can divert the stream away from the control
device to the atmosphere, you would be required to either (1) install,
maintain and operate a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS)
for flow that is capable of recording the volume of gas that bypassed
the control device and is equipped with an automatic alarm system that
will alert an operator immediately when flow is detected in the bypass
line, or (2) to secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting
position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. You
would be required to inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least
once per month to verify the valve is maintained in the non-diverting
position. Use of a bypass at any time regulated materials are flowing
in the closed vent system that results in a release of regulated
materials to the atmosphere is considered an emissions standards
deviation under the proposed rule.
The closed vent system equipment collecting regulated material from
a regulated source would be subject to the applicable requirements of
the equipment leak Uniform Standards of proposed 40 CFR part 65,
subpart J (see section IV.A of this preamble).
4. What are the proposed monitoring and compliance requirements I must
meet for each control device?
Under the proposed requirements, you would be required to conduct
continuous monitoring for each boiler, process heater, oxidizer,
absorber, adsorber, condenser, sorbent injection, biofilter, fabric
filter or other control device used to comply with standards in the
referencing subpart. The monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements proposed in subpart M are applicable to all control
devices. This includes control devices in series with one another
(e.g., an absorber and a thermal oxidizer).
For each of these control devices, you must install a CEMS capable
of measuring regulated material in the exhaust stream of the control
device or you may elect to install and operate a CPMS, unless
disallowed by a referencing subpart. You would be required to establish
operating limits for monitored parameters that indicate the control
device is meeting the specified emission standard of the referencing
subpart. For fabric filters, we are proposing that you equip your
fabric filter with a bag leak detection system with a device able to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor. Additionally,
the bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system
that will sound when an increase in PM emissions is detected and which
does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6-
month period; if the alarm sounds more than 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period, it is considered a deviation. The
proposed rule provides guidance for calculating the alarm time and
directs the corrective actions to be taken.
As part of the proposed general monitoring requirements for control
devices, CEMS and CPMS must follow the requirements specified in
proposed 40 CFR 65.711 and 40 CFR 65.712. For each CEMS used to comply
with the referencing subpart, we are proposing that you operate and
maintain each CEMS according to the requirements of your CEMS
performance evaluation and monitoring plan. We are proposing that you
conduct initial and periodic performance evaluations of each CEMS used
to comply with the referencing subpart according to this plan. In
addition, for each CPMS used to comply with the referencing subpart, we
are proposing that you operate and maintain each CPMS according to the
requirements of your CPMS monitoring
[[Page 17948]]
plan. For each bag leak detection system, you must maintain a CPMS
monitoring plan, a corrective action plan and records of any bag leak
detection alarm, as described in proposed 40 CFR 65.724.
All CPMS would be required to meet minimum calibration and quality
control requirements, as specified in Table 4 of subpart M. For each
monitored parameter, you would establish an operating limit, pursuant
to the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.713. Table 3 of subpart M
specifies the operating parameters, operating limits and data
monitoring, recordkeeping and compliance frequencies for each type of
control device covered by proposed subpart M. Tables 1 and 2 of subpart
M specify the monitoring equipment requirements when using CEMS and
CPMS. You would be required to keep monitoring system records for your
CEMS or CPMS, as specified in proposed 40 CFR 65.860. Additionally, you
would be required to meet the control device-specific monitoring
requirements in proposed 40 CFR 65.724 through 65.800 for the specific
control measure(s) being used.
In addition to monitoring, we are proposing that for each control
device, you must conduct a performance test to determine compliance
with the referencing subpart unless you meet the exemptions specified
in proposed 40 CFR 65.702(e). You must conduct the performance test for
each control device according to the requirements of proposed 40 CFR
65.820 through 65.829 (see section V.A.7 of this preamble). For fabric
filters, you would be required to conduct a performance evaluation
consistent with the Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance (EPA-454/
R-98-015, September 1997, incorporated by reference). As a burden
reduction for existing regulated sources transitioning to the Uniform
Standards, we are not requiring performance tests for which a previous
performance test report has been submitted, if the performance test was
conducted within the last 5 years and was conducted as specified in
proposed subpart M. We note that some transitioning sources may be
required to conduct a performance test in cases where new parameter
monitoring is required (e.g., carbon absorbers). We anticipate that the
referencing subpart will specify, as appropriate for the individual
source category, if a new performance test is required or if a prior
performance test will satisfy the requirement.
Owners or operators using a fuel gas system to comply with the
requirements of the referencing subpart would be required to submit a
statement that the emission stream is connected to the fuel gas system
in the Notification of Compliance Status Report. Fuel gas systems used
to meet air emissions control would be subject to the applicable
proposed equipment leak Uniform Standards of 40 CFR part 65, subpart J
(see section IV.A of this preamble) as they apply to the individual
equipment components comprising the fuel gas system. These requirements
include specific instrument monitoring requirements for equipment in
gas and vapor service and equipment in light liquid service, and
specific sensory monitoring requirements for equipment in heavy liquid
service and other equipment that meets certain criteria. You would also
be required to meet the control device provisions in proposed 40 CFR
65.724 for small boilers and process heaters that are a part of the
fuel gas system if regulated material is routed to the fuel gas system
for control.
For each small boiler or process heater, thermal oxidizer,
catalytic oxidizer, absorber, adsorber, condenser, biofilter, sorbent
injection system or other control device used to comply with the
referencing subpart, you would be required to keep the records
described in section V.A.8 of this preamble.
5. What are the performance testing requirements?
The performance testing requirements for subpart M are included in
proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829. Proposed 40 CFR 65.820 provides
requirements for notification, development and submittal of a
performance test plan, and specifies the ``performance testing
facilities'' that must be provided by owners and operators required to
conduct a performance test (see proposed 40 CFR 65.820(d)).
For each control device controlling regulated materials for which a
performance test is required, the proposed standards specify
requirements on how to test vent streams from continuous process
operations, batch process operations and combined continuous and batch
process operations in proposed 40 CFR 65.821. For continuous process
operations, we are proposing that you conduct performance tests during
``maximum representative operating conditions for the process.''
Specifically, we are proposing that you must operate your process
during the performance test in such a way that results in the most
challenging condition for the control device. The most challenging
condition for the control device may include, but is not limited to,
the highest HAP mass loading rate to the control device, or the highest
HAP mass loading rate of constituents that approach the limits of
solubility for scrubbing media.
For batch process operations, performance tests must be conducted
at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case
conditions. The proposed standards define the criteria for selecting
the absolute worst-case and hypothetical worst-case conditions in 40
CFR 65.822 (see section V.B.6 of this preamble). We are also proposing
that you develop an emissions profile that would describe the
characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the control device
under those absolute or hypothetical worst-case conditions you
selected. You would then be required to control and achieve the
emission limit prescribed under the referencing subpart, and conduct
your performance tests for those periods of worst-case conditions you
selected (see section V.B.6 of this preamble).
For combined continuous and batch process operations, you must
conduct performance tests when the batch process operations are
operating at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case
conditions, and the continuous operations are operating at the maximum
representative operating conditions for the process.
Table 5 to proposed subpart M specifies the applicable test methods
and procedures for each test run, based on the type of emission limit
specified in the referencing subpart. As discussed in section II.E of
this preamble, we anticipate that the referencing subpart will
establish the emission limit that best represents the level of control
needed for the source category. The referencing subpart would provide
rationale for the format and units of measure for each limit, or, if
applicable, rationale for the use of a surrogate in cases where methods
for a specific pollutant are insufficient.
We are proposing that if you make a change to process equipment or
operating conditions that would affect the operating parameter values
of a control device and render the operating limits ineffective as
indicators of compliance with the standard, you must conduct a
performance test within 180 days of the date of startup of the change
to establish new operating limits and demonstrate that you are in
compliance with the applicable emission limit of the referencing
subpart.
We have included additional requirements for performance testing,
including sampling, duration and calculations for determining
compliance
[[Page 17949]]
in proposed 40 CFR 65.823 through 65.829.
6. What are the additional requirements for batch process operations?
In proposed 40 CFR 65.835, we have included a method for
demonstrating compliance with an aggregated percent reduction emission
standard. These requirements apply when a referencing subpart allows
the owner or operator to show compliance with a percent reduction by
aggregating emissions over the full batch process. To demonstrate
compliance, the owner or operator would use the proposed engineering
evaluation methodologies to calculate uncontrolled emissions from all
batch process operations for a given process that they do not want to
control. The owner or operator would still determine, through
performance testing, uncontrolled and controlled emissions from batch
process operations that are controlled. All emissions from all batch
process operations (i.e., those emissions determined from the proposed
engineering evaluation methodologies and those emissions determined
from performance testing) would then be considered when determining
compliance with the percent reduction emission limit.
In addition, we are proposing that you use these engineering
evaluation methodologies if you choose to develop an emissions profile
by process for determining absolute worst-case conditions of your batch
process operations. You would also use these methodologies as part of
your condenser design evaluation (see the specific condenser section of
section V.B.3 of this preamble).
7. How can I demonstrate compliance through design evaluation?
Except for condensers, under the proposed standards, you may
demonstrate compliance for a non-flare control device by conducting a
design evaluation in lieu of a performance test, if allowed by the
referencing subpart. The design evaluation would require documentation
that the control device being used achieves the emission limit required
by the referencing subpart. For condensers, we are proposing that you
must conduct a design evaluation (see section V.B.3 of this preamble).
The evaluation must also include documentation of the composition of
the vent stream entering each control device, including flow, regulated
material concentration and other site-specific information for each
control device, as provided in proposed 40 CFR 65.850. If you choose to
do a design evaluation, you would also submit a monitoring description
with the Notification of Compliance Status. The monitoring description
would contain a description of the parameters to be monitored and the
associated operating limit(s), an explanation of the criteria used for
selection of that parameter (or parameters) and the operating limit(s),
the frequency with which monitoring will be performed, and the
averaging time for each operating parameter being measured. Once the
design evaluation has been conducted and operating parameters have been
established, the non-flare control device must be operated and
maintained such that the monitored parameters remain within the
established operating limit.
8. What are the recordkeeping, notification and reporting requirements?
We are proposing that each owner or operator of the affected
control device must keep the records in proposed 40 CFR 65.860. These
include:
Continuous records of the monitoring equipment operating
parameters or emissions. If certain requirements are met, you have the
option of maintaining a record of each measured value, or block hourly
average data and the most recent three valid hours of continuous
records.
Records of the daily average value or operating block
average value of each continuously monitored parameter or emissions for
each operating day.
Non-continuous records as specified in 40 CFR 65.860(b).
Records of each operating scenario, each emission episode,
and each emission profile you develop as described in proposed 40 CFR
65.860(f) for batch operations.
Control device monitoring, calibration and maintenance
records.
Records of periods when the regulated source, control
equipment or CPMS are out of control, inoperative or are not operating
properly.
For batch process operations, records of whether each
batch operation was considered a standard batch, including estimated
uncontrolled and controlled emissions for each nonstandard batch.
Performance test records for each performance test
performed, as described in proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829 (and
discussed further in section V.A.7 of this preamble). For control
devices for which a performance test is required, you would be required
to keep records of the percent reduction of regulated material achieved
by the control device or the concentration of regulated material at the
outlet of the control device, as applicable.
You would be required to submit the reports in proposed 40 CFR
65.880, 65.882, 65.883 and 65.884; certain reports must be submitted
electronically, as specified in the proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H
(see section II.F and VI.B.7 of this preamble). As specified in
proposed 40 CFR 65.880, you would be required to submit the
Notification of Compliance Status by the date provided by the
referencing subpart. The Notification of Compliance Status would
require certifications of compliance with rule requirements, including
batch calculations and design evaluation records. The report would also
include the established operating limit for each monitored parameter.
For halogenated vent streams, you would be required to identify any
halogenated vent streams as part of the Notification of Compliance
Status. The Notification of Compliance Status would also include a
statement about any emissions being routed to a fuel gas system. For
existing control devices that may be redirected to the Uniform
Standards as current regulations are revised, you would also be
required to submit a Notification of Compliance Status. However, in
order to reduce burden for transitioning sources, we are providing that
you would be allowed to rely on previous performance test reports as
part of the submittal, as long as the performance test was conducted
within the past 5 years and conducted as specified under proposed
subpart M. As discussed in section V.A.4 of this preamble, some
transitioning sources may be required to conduct a performance test in
cases where new parameter monitoring is required.
You would be required to submit semi-annual and annual periodic
reports according to the requirements in proposed 40 CFR 65.882 and
65.883. Generally, semi-annual reporting of deviations is required to
submit electronically, and annual reporting of non-deviation elements
is required to be submitted in hard copy, as discussed under Types of
reports in section VI.B.7 of this preamble. We are proposing, under 40
CFR 65.884, that you submit certain reports at varying times, based on
the activity being reported, including a notification of the
performance test, any application to substitute a prior performance
test for an initial performance test, a CEMS performance evaluation
notification or CPMS monitoring plan submittal, a batch pre-compliance
report and certain information, if you chose to use a control device
other than those listed in this subpart.
[[Page 17950]]
9. When must I comply with the proposed standards?
We are not proposing to specify a compliance timeline in subpart M,
so the compliance timeline specified in the referencing subpart would
apply for that source category.
B. Rationale
This section provides rationale for the proposed compliance
requirements for vent streams that are routed to fuel gas systems or
through closed vent systems to control devices. Rationale for the
associated monitoring, performance testing, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements is also included.
In keeping with our intent to provide a smarter, streamlined
process for rulemaking and ensure consistent standards across multiple
source categories, we have structured the National Uniform Emission
Standards for Control Devices to provide a common set of monitoring,
testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that may be
referenced from multiple regulations, including NSPS and NESHAP. The
proposed Uniform Standards in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M are generally
based on a review of the Generic MACT standards of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS. Additionally, we reviewed other recent rules, the
applicability determination index database, test reports and recent EPA
decisions to identify advances in control technologies, monitoring and
compliance approaches. This is in keeping with our intent that the
proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices would
provide a set of supporting requirements that could be considered in
future rulemakings under CAA section 111 and 112 to meet the applicable
statutory requirements.
The requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS were chosen as the
best starting point for these proposed standards because they were
previously developed for the purpose of providing consistent control
device requirements that could be referenced by multiple NESHAP
subparts, and they already incorporate some improvements based on the
EPA's experience with implementation of other subparts, such as the MON
(71 FR 40333, issued on July 14, 2006) and the HON (59 FR 19402, issued
on April 22, 1994). We have augmented the subpart SS provisions by
adding requirements from other subparts to provide additional
continuous monitoring options, to better accommodate batch processes
and to provide requirements for additional regulated materials (e.g.,
metals, PM) and types of control devices (e.g., fabric filters, sorbent
injection) not covered by subpart SS.
We have developed the Uniform Standards for Control Devices to
create a set of requirements that will ensure continuous compliance
with the standards established under a referencing subpart. In
developing the proposed requirements, we had the opportunity to review
typical compliance methods for control devices controlling vent streams
from regulations representing a variety of source categories. From this
review, we considered the variation in requirements between rules and
identified the most effective requirements for each control device. As
such, we are proposing subpart M with more stringent requirements than
may currently apply to some source categories; however, this stringency
can always be overridden by the referencing subpart if deemed
appropriate for the particular source category. These more stringent
requirements reflect our intention to provide a consistent set of
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that reflect the
most current control technologies and that are accessible and
applicable for the majority of source categories complying with MACT
and that would potentially reference the Uniform Standards to meet
MACT. These consistent standards, if promulgated, will reduce the
current overlapping and inconsistent provisions from multiple NSPS and
NESHAP that may apply to a single source into a single set of
requirements, thereby reducing the compliance burden for sources and
government alike. Providing this common set of requirements also
circumvents any undue burden on a single source category (for instance,
source categories currently subject to multiple regulations).
Furthermore, this approach would reduce the number of requests for
alternative monitoring requirements, which are frequently made by
sources required to comply with multiple NESHAP and NSPS. The proposed
Uniform Standards for Control Devices also provide some additional
requirements in places that we discovered, through our regulatory
survey, were not adequately addressed by current regulations (e.g., we
have included provisions for regenerative carbon absorbers that specify
how the source should handle desorbed contaminants). We note that the
referencing subpart establishes the applicability of the Uniform
Standards for Control Devices and the specific provisions of subpart M
that may apply; therefore, a referencing subpart may structure more or
less stringent requirements for a given source category as is best
determined to meet MACT, GACT, AMOS or BSER. (See Relationship to
Referencing Subpart below.)
In keeping with the objectives of Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, we have also incorporated changes to
simplify and streamline the language, improve consistency, incorporate
the latest technical requirements and remove unnecessary regulatory
burden to create the National Uniform Emission Standards for Control
Devices. We believe that these improvements will result in a
consistent, yet flexible set of standards that may be easily referenced
by multiple source categories in CAA section 111 and 112 rulemakings,
resulting in a more efficient regulatory process that will benefit both
regulated entities and government agencies. Throughout this section, we
will describe the rationale for each major proposed change from the
previous rules.
Relationship to Referencing Subpart. In contrast to the Uniform
Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations and the Uniform
Standards for Equipment Leaks, the proposed subpart M does not
establish applicability thresholds or control levels that may be relied
upon by a referencing subpart. Rather, subpart M requires that the
referencing subpart establish all applicability, including thresholds
or tiers. We have developed subpart M without these types of thresholds
because there is a greater variety of emission streams expected to be
controlled under subpart M. Storage tanks and equipment leaks are
generally controlled on a unit level, with a standard configuration,
and the emissions mechanism by which pollutants are released to the
atmosphere from these emission points is generally limited. In general,
these emissions points are single points that, individually, do not
represent large emission sources, and that all behave similarly.
Therefore, control of emissions from these points has historically been
homogenous with applicability thresholds and control levels that are
easily set; storage tanks, for instance, have historically been
controlled using preventative maintenance practices, while emissions
from equipment leaks have been historically controlled by LDAR
requirements.
Conversely, subpart M provides requirements for control devices
that may control a variety of emission
[[Page 17951]]
streams with various configurations, flow and concentrations. It is
possible for multiple process streams throughout a facility to be
joined with and directed to a single control device in numerous
configurations, combining emissions in one stream for control of a very
large emission source. Furthermore, the number of vents to a control
device may vary greatly across source categories; some source
categories may reflect a standard configuration in which the process
streams require multiple control devices; other source categories may
reflect a standard configuration in which a single process stream
requires control. Because of the many configurations that exist for
individual facilities across multiple source categories, the emissions
mechanism for process streams routed to control devices may vary
greatly. Therefore, we have determined that the referencing subpart is
the best place to determine the applicability threshold or control
level for a specific source category, as the referencing subpart may
consider the unique configurations, flow and concentration of regulated
material within a given process stream or streams.
The Uniform Standards for Control Devices assume that the
referencing subpart will establish and provide the rationale for the
specific emission limits that best support the source category being
regulated. The referencing subpart would address and assign
applicability thresholds or control levels for any provisions of the
Uniform Standards not cross-referenced by the referencing subpart. The
referencing subpart could cross-reference or make exceptions, as
necessary, to ensure that the proposed requirements of subpart M are
appropriate to the source category. For instance, a referencing subpart
with multiple applicability thresholds may only direct to a portion of
subpart M for sources meeting one of those thresholds. Additionally,
the referencing subpart could determine to not direct to subpart M at
all for certain applicability thresholds. For example, a referencing
subpart may only require CEMS for streams above a defined threshold.
Organization of Proposed Subpart M. The proposed rule is structured
so that the compliance requirements for each control device are
provided in separate sections. Each control device section includes the
specific requirements for that control device, including monitoring,
performance testing, conducting a design evaluation, and recordkeeping
and reporting. Specific continuous monitoring requirements for control
devices are provided in Tables 1 and 2 of subpart M. We have organized
the standards this way to facilitate ease of reading and understanding,
to congregate requirements for similar control devices in one place and
to remove redundant text. For example, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS
includes a general section for performance testing procedures
containing a specific requirement regarding the selection of sampling
sites for vent streams introduced with combustion air or as a secondary
fuel into certain types of boilers or process heaters. We have moved
these requirements, specific only to small boilers and process heaters,
to a small boiler and process heater section, which is located in
proposed 40 CFR 65.724. Additionally, although subpart SS includes a
separate section of requirements for halogenated scrubbers, we have
consolidated these provisions with the requirements for absorbers. We
reasoned that a halogenated scrubber is a specific type of absorber,
and the previous requirements overlapped; combining these requirements
reduces redundancy and allows for a streamlined compliance approach.
Because the proposed standards contain general monitoring and
performance testing requirements that would be applicable to more than
one type of control device, we have included separate sections for
general monitoring requirements and performance testing requirements to
reduce redundancy across rule sections. We additionally congregated the
requirements for the correct operation of CEMS and CPMS, as well as
requirements for establishing the operating parameters for each CPMS,
into individual sections. In addition to the specific control device
section that applies to you, you would comply with these proposed
general monitoring requirements, located in 40 CFR 65.710 through
65.712. Likewise, you would comply with the proposed general
performance testing requirements in 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829, which
include detailed provisions on the methods required for testing. We
have also designated a section for general requirements for performing
design evaluations. It is our intent that the proposed standards of
subpart M, as organized, will have improved clarity and consistency,
which will facilitate both reading and compliance as the standards are
referenced in future rulemakings.
General differences between proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M and
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Although the requirements of subpart M are
primarily based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, we revised some of the
terminology used in subpart SS to provide clarification and accommodate
the broad range of source categories and control devices that could be
covered by the proposed standards in the future. The National Uniform
Emission Standards for Control Devices are intended to provide a common
set of testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
that may be referenced from multiple regulations, including NSPS and
NESHAP. Therefore, subparts referencing subpart M may define a range of
pollutants and pollutant types (e.g., HAP, criteria pollutants). To
accommodate the variety of pollutants and pollutant types that may be
regulated under future NSPS and NESHAP, we have used the term
``regulated material'' to mean the pollutant regulated by the
referencing subpart. We have also used the term ``oxidizer'' in lieu of
``incinerator'' to refer to control devices such as thermal and
catalytic oxidizers in order to differentiate these devices from other
regulated incineration units.
We revised some provisions included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS
that are redundant or unclear, including the ``route to process''
provisions. Subpart SS includes an option to route regulated material
emissions from non-process operations (i.e., storage tanks, transfer
equipment and equipment leaks) to a process for control. The
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting language from subpart SS for
this option is not included in proposed subpart M, as these
requirements add unnecessary regulatory burden. The proposed Uniform
Standards are consistent with the intent of subpart SS, in that owners
and operators will continue to have the flexibility to route vent
streams, as necessary, to control releases. However, these emission
streams will not be subject to additional monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting if they are simply integrated into the process. We have
assumed that vent streams that are routed to a process would be
eventually released to the atmosphere through a regulated emissions
point (e.g., process operation, wastewater stream, equipment leak,
etc.) or incorporated into a product or byproduct. Therefore, these
requirements were unclear and unnecessary for the purposes of subpart
M. We are soliciting comments on this change, including comment on the
assumptions presented in this section. We are also requesting comments
on whether some vent streams routed to the process are not released to
the atmosphere through a regulated emissions point.
The proposed subpart M does not contain requirements for flares.
[[Page 17952]]
Proposed subparts I and J refer to 40 CFR 63.11(b) of subpart A for
emissions routed to flares from storage tanks, transfer operations, and
leaking equipment. It is anticipated that for process vents controlled
by flares, a referencing subpart will reference either 40 CFR 63.11(b)
of subpart A or include other provisions that are determined to be
applicable for flares used at the source category regulated by the
referencing subpart. However, we are in the process of gathering data,
reviewing flare research papers and test reports, and investigating
operating conditions that may impact the performance of a flare,
including situations of over steaming, excess aeration, flame lift off,
and high winds. Based on this information, we may in the future propose
to add new flare requirements to the Uniform Standards in subpart M,
which can be referenced by subparts I and J and referencing subparts.
1. How did the EPA determine the general monitoring requirements and
the requirements for CEMS and CPMS?
The general monitoring requirements that we are proposing are
modeled after specific requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS,
which were based on monitoring and inspection requirements previously
developed by the EPA for use in implementing standards for various
chemical industry sources. We are supplementing these requirements by
proposing continuous monitoring through the installation and operation
of either a CEMS or a CPMS. CEMS have been widely used to demonstrate
that air pollution control devices are being operated in a manner that
ensures that emission limitations are being met, and recent regulations
reflect the increasing use of CEMS as a monitoring device across
multiple source categories. However, in evaluating the use of CEMS in
multiple NESHAP, we determined that monitoring of individual regulated
materials may not be reasonable or technically feasible for certain
streams. For instance, CEMS may not be available for certain individual
HAP species, or may not be economically feasible for smaller sources.
In such cases, parameter monitoring provides an alternative option that
ensures the control device is operating consistently and continues to
achieve the required emission limits. This also provides a more cost-
efficient option for some sources, without reducing compliance.
Therefore, in order to create a set of standards that could be applied
to a broader range of source categories, we have included requirements
for both CEMS and CPMS. During the development of referencing subparts
that will direct to the Uniform Standards, we will continue to assess
the best monitoring option for a given source category from a technical
and economic standpoint. We will provide rationale upon proposal or
promulgation as to why CEMS or CPMS would be more appropriate for an
individual source category, or whether additional flexibility for
industry and reduced burden on smaller sources within an individual
source category could be granted by allowing either a CEMS or CPMS to
be used. We anticipate that in future regulations, the referencing
subpart may even override the monitoring options of the proposed
subpart M and require a specific monitoring technique.
We have incorporated and updated the CEMS requirements established
in the MON, which were developed in consideration of a combination of
monitoring requirements from the HON and Pharmaceuticals Production
source categories. We have supplemented these requirements with
provisions based on the CEMS-specific requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A. These provisions are consolidated under proposed 40 CFR
65.711 in order to establish a set of similar requirements for CEMS in
one place that may more generally apply to sources regulated under 40
CFR part 60, 61 or 63 in future rulemakings.
For CPMS, we selected monitoring equipment criteria for overall
system accuracy and compatibility. These requirements, which ensure
accuracy in measurements and provide confidence for testing results,
were inconsistently provided in previous regulations. When these
criteria are not established, there is potential that sources could
elect to use very costly CPMS equipment, which is inappropriate or
ineffective for measuring certain parameters and, therefore, provides
inadequate data for the source category. By applying a consistent set
of criteria that applies to multiple source categories, we are
improving data accuracy, reducing potential costs and removing undue
burden for specific source categories. We are requesting comment on
whether the proposed approach for establishing CEMS calibration ranges
and assessing performance will adequately ensure the accuracy of the
reported average emissions that might include measurements at
concentrations above the span value. We are also seeking comments on
how owners and operators of CPMS are currently employing quality
control and calibration methods. Additionally, we welcome information
on the lifetime and degradation of CPMS equipment used to measure
temperature, liquid or gas volumetric flow, pH, mass flow, pressure and
sorbent injection; and whether a ``sunset period'' for existing CPMS
equipment is necessary in cases where the lifetime of the monitoring
components is limited.
The requirements for measurement range were selected to ensure that
the CPMS could detect and record measurements beyond the normal
operating range. We believe that requiring a range of at least 20
percent beyond the normal operating range is reasonable and the minimum
measurement range needed to encompass most deviations. Owners and
operators may desire to select equipment with even wider ranges if it
is likely that measurements beyond 20 percent of the normal operating
range will occur. Additionally, we are requiring a resolution of one-
half the accuracy requirement or better to ensure that the accuracy of
the CPMS can be calculated to at least the minimum number of
significant figures for the data accuracy assessment to be meaningful.
Selecting a resolution of one-half the required accuracy ensures that
measurements made during validation checks can be readily compared to
the accuracy requirement. We are soliciting comments on whether the
proposed measurement range and accuracy requirements are reasonable and
consistent with what is currently being used.
We are proposing calibration and quality control requirements for
CPMS to ensure that measured parameter data is accurate to demonstrate
compliance with the referencing subpart. These measures, which
establish requirements for the design, operation and evaluation of
CPMS, are intended to ensure the generation of good quality data both
initially and on an ongoing basis and determine that the control device
is meeting the required emission limit, as specified in the referencing
subpart. The specifications are located in Table 4 to proposed subpart
M and would apply if you were to use a temperature, liquid or gas
volumetric flow, pH, mass flow, pressure or sorbent injection
measurement device to determine compliance with an operating limit.
These requirements also reflect the EPA's intention to improve the
quality of data collected and disseminated by the agency, which will
improve the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, future
air quality regulations.
For temperature CPMS, we reviewed rules promulgated under parts 60,
61 and 63 that specify accuracy requirements for temperature. Although
there is a wide range of accuracies specified in these rules, the
accuracy
[[Page 17953]]
required for temperature CPMS associated with high temperature (non-
cryogenic) applications, such as thermal oxidizers or boilers,
generally ranges from 0.75 to 1.0 percent or from 0.5 degrees Celsius
to 2.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit to 4.5 degrees
Fahrenheit). For lower temperature (cryogenic) applications, such as
wet scrubbers, the specified percent accuracies often are not as
stringent; that is, accuracies are specified as a higher percentage of
the measured temperature. The reason for specifying higher-percentage
accuracy for lower temperature ranges is to offset the fact that the
accuracy percentage applies to a lower value. Our selection of
temperature accuracies of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) or
1 percent for non-cryogenic applications, and 2.8 degrees Celsius (5
degrees Fahrenheit) or 2.5 percent for cryogenic applications is
consistent with the required accuracies for most standards, and we
believe that the accuracies specified in the proposed performance
specifications are adequate for ensuring good quality data. In
addition, a review of vendor literature indicates that temperature CPMS
that satisfy these accuracy requirements are readily available at
reasonable costs.
Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61 and 63 that require flow rate
monitoring specify flow rate accuracy in terms of percent. For liquid
flow rate measurement, these rules generally require accuracies of 5
percent, and rules that require steam flow rate monitoring generally
require an accuracy of 10 percent or better. We have revised these
performance specifications in the proposed subpart M to require
accuracies of 2 percent over the normal range of flow measured. Based
on our review of vendor literature, we determined a 2-percent accuracy
criterion is appropriate and available. Recognizing the differences in
the relative magnitudes and the commonly used units of flow rate
measurement for liquids and gases, we have specified in the proposed
performance standards separate accuracy criteria for liquid and gas
flow rates. For liquid flow rate CPMS, which typically are associated
with wet scrubber operation, the minimum accuracy would be 1.9 liters
per minute (0.5 gallons per minute) or 2 percent, whichever is greater.
For gas flow rate CPMS, which often are used to monitor stack gas flow
rate, the proposed performance specifications would require a minimum
accuracy of 28 liters per minute (10 cubic feet/minute) or 2 percent,
whichever is greater. The relative accuracy criterion of 2 percent was
selected because the proposed Uniform Standards have been developed to
provide the greatest level of air emissions control that may be
required by a referencing subpart. As advancements in technology have
improved (and are estimated to continue to improve), we have determined
that future rulemakings would require more stringent accuracy
requirements, and a 2-percent accuracy criterion is reasonable and
achievable for the currently available flow CPMS. We note that these
requirements could be revised by the referencing subpart, if a higher
or lower accuracy is deemed more appropriate for a specific source
category.
Although we have incorporated an accuracy criteria for liquid flow
rate and gas flow rate as a percent of flow rate and in units of
volumetric flow in proposed subpart M, we have concluded that it would
not be reasonable to specify accuracy criteria for mass flow in units
of mass flow because of the wide range of flow rates that could be
monitored (e.g., carbon injection rate v. rotary kiln raw material feed
rate). As discussed above for liquid flow rate and gas flow rate, the
2-percent accuracy criterion is based on our review of vendor
literature and is a reasonable and achievable requirement for the
currently available mass flow CPMS.
Manufacturer and vendor literature indicates that pH CPMS generally
have accuracies of 0.01 to 0.15 pH units. Based largely on the vendor
literature, we have decided to require pH CPMS to have accuracies of
0.2 pH units or better. An accuracy of 0.2 pH units should allow most
facilities that currently monitor pH to continue using their pH CPMS,
provided the CPMS satisfies the other criteria specified in the
proposed Uniform Standards for Control Devices.
For pressure monitoring, we reviewed the existing part 60, 61 and
63 rules that require pressure monitoring. These rules also specify a
minimum accuracy. The accuracy specified generally is either 0.25 to
0.5 kilopascals (kPa) (1 to 2 inch water column (in. wc)) or 5 percent
for pressure drop, and 5 to 15 percent for liquid supply pressure. A
review of vendor literature indicates that most pressure transducers
are accurate from 0.25 to 1.0 percent, and all but the lowest grade
(Grade D) of American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-rated
pressure gauges have accuracies better than 5 percent. For the proposed
performance specifications for CPMS, we selected an accuracy
requirement of 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc) or 1.0 percent, whichever is
greater. We believe this level of accuracy is appropriate, considering
that some control devices operate with pressure drops of less than 1.2
kPa (5 in. wc). This criterion was selected because the proposed
Uniform Standards have been developed to provide the greatest level of
air emissions control that may be required by a referencing subpart.
The one percent criterion is consistent with vendor literature, which
indicates that CPMS that are capable of achieving this accuracy are
readily available.
For sorbent injection, we are specifying accuracy requirements of
within 5 percent of the normal range for the sorbent injection rate,
with annual performance evaluations and 3-month visual checks. These
requirements are consistent with the accuracy requirements for other
CPMS, including the requirements for carrier gas flow rate monitors (a
similar type of monitor) in the Standards of Performance for New Sewage
Sludge Incineration Units (76 FR 15404, March 21, 2011).
If your operation could be intermittent, we are requiring that you
install and operate a flow indicator to identify periods of flow and no
flow at the inlet or outlet of the control device. The proposed
requirements are necessary to identify periods when monitored parameter
or emission readings are not required or erroneous and should not be
included in the daily or operating block average values. It is not
necessary to monitor a control device during periods when regulated
material is not routed to the control, and monitoring data during these
times should not be averaged in calculating the daily or operating
block average. We are proposing an annual verification check of the
flow indicator to ensure that it is correctly identifying periods of no
flow. We are not considering the flow indicator to be a CPMS that must
meet all the provisions of proposed 40 CFR 65.712.
We are proposing to include monitoring requirements from the
General Provisions of parts 60, 61 and 63 in the monitoring sections of
subpart M. This places all the applicable requirements associated with
monitoring (including quality checks, monitoring plan requirements,
calibration, monitoring data reduction, recordkeeping and reporting) in
one place and consolidated using consistent terminology. For instance,
we are including provisions for a CEMS performance evaluation and
monitoring plan and a CPMS monitoring plan (formerly the ``site-
specific performance evaluation plan'') from the part 63 General
Provisions (40 CFR 63.8) in proposed 40 CFR 65.711 and 65.712,
[[Page 17954]]
respectively. Subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 states that a specific
subpart will indicate whether the plan must be submitted to the
Administrator for approval. In the proposed rule, we are requiring that
the plan be sent to the Administrator for approval for sources
regulated under parts 60 and 61, as well as 40 CFR part 63. We have
determined that a CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan or a
CPMS monitoring plan, as appropriate, is necessary under subpart M to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits of a referencing
subpart. However, the source must comply with the CEMS performance
evaluation and monitoring plan or the CPMS monitoring plan upon
submitting it to the Administrator. Changes may be necessary when the
Administrator completes the review.
2. How did the EPA determine the requirements for closed vent systems?
Under the proposed standards, all closed vent systems would be
required to meet the applicable provisions of proposed 40 CFR part 65,
subpart J (see section IV.A of this preamble) as they apply to the
individual equipment components that comprise the closed vent system.
In previous rules, equipment that are in closed vent systems have been
subject to annual monitoring and have not been subject to more frequent
monitoring. We are proposing these requirements to ensure that a vent
stream in regulated material service is properly routed to the closed
vent system and delivered to the control device for reduction. The
proposed rule also requires you to install and maintain a CPMS for flow
through a bypass for each closed vent system bypass line that could
divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. The CPMS for flow must be
capable of recording the volume of the gas that bypasses the control
device and be equipped with an alarm system that will alert an operator
immediately and automatically when flow is detected in the bypass.
These provisions are to ensure that any flow directed through a bypass
is detected and identified by the operator. Alternatively, you may
secure the bypass line valve in the non-diverting position with a seal
mechanism. For this option, you would be required to inspect the seal
or closure mechanism at least once per month to confirm that the valve
is in the non-diverting position, or, for a lock-and-key type lock,
maintain records that the key has been checked out. If the alarm sounds
or if it is determined during the monthly inspection that a bypass has
occurred, you would be required to report a deviation and to include an
estimate of the resulting emissions of regulated material that bypassed
the control device. The EPA's intent is that control devices are not to
be bypassed; therefore, use of the bypass at any time to divert a
regulated vent stream to the atmosphere would be a deviation from the
emissions standards set forth by the referencing subpart.
We have not included requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS
that provided monitoring exclusions for equipment such as PRD, low leg
drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-ended valves or
lines needed for safety purposes. This equipment could provide a means
of bypassing the control device; therefore, we are proposing bypass
monitoring for these devices under subpart M of the proposed standards.
It is our intent that analyzer vents should be subject to the control
requirements for sampling connection systems in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UU. Additionally, applying the bypass monitoring requirements to PRD,
low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-ended valves
or lines are consistent with the District of Columbia Circuit Court's
2008 ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, which states that emission standards
must apply at all times (see section VI.B.5 of this preamble). For a
discussion of the economic and cost impacts of these monitoring
requirements, see section VII of this preamble.
Following the guidance of Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, we have not included requirements
from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS that we determined were redundant or an
unnecessary burden on sources. For instance, although we are not
changing the intent of the requirements from subpart SS, we have not
included language providing specific instructions for bypass monitoring
for loading arms and PRD at transfer racks; specifically, these
provisions required that closed vent systems collecting regulated
material from a transfer rack be operated such that regulated material
vapors collected at one loading arm would not pass through another
loading arm to the atmosphere. For PRD, the requirements prevented the
PRD in the transfer rack's closed vent system from opening to the
atmosphere during loading. These provisions are equivalently handled
under the general bypass monitoring requirements of proposed 40 CFR
65.720(c) for closed vent systems, in which you would be required to
prevent diversion of the stream to the atmosphere. Therefore, we are
not including specific language associated with bypasses from transfer
rack closed vent systems, as this additional language is redundant to
the general bypass requirement. The requirement not to bypass remains.
3. How did the EPA determine the proposed compliance requirements for
each control device?
For each control device, we are proposing that you meet the
continuous monitoring requirements of Table 1 or Table 2 to subpart M.
Table 1 to subpart M provides the requirements for facilities who
comply with the referencing subpart using CEMS. We have consolidated
the specific parametric monitoring requirements for each control device
in Table 2 to subpart M to provide the requirements in a simplified,
easily referenced format to facilitate compliance.
You must conduct a performance test for each control device
according to the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829,
unless you meet the general control measures of proposed 40 CFR
65.702(e). A performance test is required because emissions measurement
remains the best method to demonstrate initial compliance with
regulations and determine control device performance. However, we have
made exceptions for: (1) Control devices for which a CEMS is used to
monitor the performance, (2) when the referencing subpart allows a
design evaluation in lieu of a performance test or (3) if certain
provisions have been made for a performance test extension, exemption
or waiver. These exemptions allow greater flexibility for referencing
subparts and are consistent with our desire to provide workable,
consolidated requirements that could apply across multiple source
categories.
Small boilers and process heaters. The proposed standards under
subpart M include requirements that apply to small boilers and process
heaters used to control emissions of regulated materials. Small boilers
and process heaters are defined in the proposed rule as having a
capacity less than 44 megawatts (MW) and a design such that the vent
stream is introduced with the combustion air or as a secondary fuel.
The capacity threshold and the monitoring, performance testing and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these units were modeled
after 40 CFR 63, subpart SS. We have modified these provisions for the
proposed Uniform Standards to provide clarification for requirements
that were found to be confusing during the implementation of subpart
SS. Under subpart SS, the requirements for boilers and process heaters
overlapped
[[Page 17955]]
with the requirements for fuel gas systems.
Fuel gas system is defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS broadly as
the ``* * * piping * * * that gathers gaseous streams for use as fuel
gas in combustion devices. * * *'' Therefore, owners or operators that
use a boiler or process heater to combust vent gas could be subject to
either the boiler and process heater or the fuel gas system
requirements. The testing and monitoring requirements under the control
device and fuel gas system provisions of subpart SS are the same for
boilers or process heaters larger than 44 MW or which have the vent gas
introduced with or as the primary fuel; performance testing and
monitoring are not required for vent gas routed to a fuel gas system, a
boiler or process heater larger than 44 MW or a boiler or process
heater in which the vent gas is introduced as or with the primary fuel.
However, under the control device provisions of subpart SS, performance
testing and monitoring is required in those situations in which the
vent gas is introduced with combustion air or as a secondary fuel into
a boiler or process heater smaller than 44 MW. Conversely, if these
units (smaller than 44 MW) are part of a fuel gas system, monitoring
and testing is not required under subpart SS. We propose to clarify the
requirements by differentiating small boilers (less than 44 MW) with
vent gas introduced to the boiler with combustion air or as a secondary
fuel from larger units and those units with vent gas introduced as or
with the primary fuel. Therefore, we have distinguished separate
requirements for performance testing and monitoring for small boilers
and process heaters under proposed 40 CFR 65.820 through 65.829, with
specific parametric monitoring requirements specified in Table 2 of
subpart M. Units not considered small boilers or process heaters would
be required to meet the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.732 for fuel
gas systems. The proposed fuel gas system provisions also specify that
any small boilers or process heaters that are part of a fuel gas system
must meet the requirements of the small boiler and process heater
provisions. These changes clarify whether each unit would be subject to
the requirements for boilers and process heaters or the requirements
for fuel gas systems.
Additionally, we are not incorporating the requirements of 40 CFR
63.988(a)(3), which stipulate that the vent stream from the boiler or
oxidizer must be introduced into the flame zone. Although we are
preserving the intent of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, we have reasoned
that this language is superfluous. We are proposing to clarify the
definition of small boilers in this category as having a design such
that the vent stream is introduced with the combustion air or as a
secondary fuel. It is assumed that secondary fuel and combustion air
are introduced into the flame zone and, therefore, the vent gas would
be introduced into the flame zone.
In the proposed rule, we have not included the exemptions from
conducting a performance test or design evaluation included in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS for small boilers and process heaters which have
been issued a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 and comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H or which have certified
compliance with the interim status requirements of 40 CFR part 266,
subpart H. It is our expectation that these facilities are no longer
subject to the air emissions requirements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act permitting rules (other than requirements
that pertain during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM)); rather,
all boilers and oxidizers previously subject to these requirements are
now subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. We have included a
performance test exemption for small boilers or process heaters burning
hazardous waste who have certified compliance with the requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE by conducting comprehensive performance
tests and submitting a Notification of Compliance Status per 40 CFR
63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d), and who comply with these requirements at
all times, even when burning non-hazardous waste. Additionally, we have
not included the subpart SS provision allowing owners or operators of
small boilers and process heaters with a minimum temperature of 760
degrees Celsius and a minimum residence time of 0.5 seconds to omit the
rationale for these design parameters in the design evaluation (40 CFR
63.985(b)(1)(i)(B)) documentation. This minimum temperature and
residence time does not necessarily ensure a 95- or 98-percent
reduction efficiency for all possible emission stream chemical
compositions (see technical memorandum, Design Criteria for Combustion,
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868). Because the Uniform Standards
are designed to provide requirements for a variety of source categories
and emission streams, we are not proposing this exception to design
evaluation rationale. Instead, we are proposing that the owner or
operator of the small boiler or process heater be required to consider
the auto-ignition temperature and the residence time when developing
the rationale showing that their small boiler or process heater meets
the applicable control efficiency and that their chosen operating
parameters and ranges are appropriate. The owner or operator may
determine that the appropriate temperature and residence time are 760
degrees Celsius and 0.5 seconds for their process; however, under the
proposed rule, they would have to provide the rationale in their design
evaluation documentation (see technical memorandum, Design Criteria for
Combustion, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868).
Oxidizers. We are proposing monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for oxidizers, based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. We are
proposing the requirements for thermal oxidizers and catalytic
oxidizers in 40 CFR 65.726 and 65.728, respectively; these provisions
are included in separate sections for ease of reading and to
accommodate the additional monitoring requirements that are necessary
to ensure compliance for catalytic oxidizers.
For catalytic oxidizers, we are including sampling, analysis and
inspection requirements to ensure that the oxidizer is capable of
meeting the required emission limits specified in the referencing
subpart. We are including a monitoring method for inlet temperature
monitoring, provided the difference between the inlet and outlet
temperature of the catalytic bed is less than 10 degrees Celsius. A
differential of 10 degrees Celsius was chosen based upon the accuracy
requirements of temperature monitoring systems specified in this
standard, and the typical operating temperature of a catalytic
oxidizer. Allowing for measurement error on both sides of the oxidizer
(inlet and outlet), 10 degrees Celsius was determined to be a range
within measurement capability. The proposed method would allow you to
determine a schedule for sampling and analysis of the catalyst
activity, based on the degradation rate of the catalyst. If results
from the catalyst sampling and analysis indicate that your catalyst
will become inactive within the next 18 months, you would be required
to replace the catalyst bed or take other corrective action consistent
with the manufacturer's recommendations by 3 months before the catalyst
is anticipated to become inactive or within half the time available
between receiving the catalyst activity report and when the catalyst is
expected to become inactive, whichever is less.
[[Page 17956]]
Additionally, you would be required to conduct an annual internal
inspection of the catalyst bed. The inspection frequency would increase
to semiannual or a more stringent frequency, as specified in proposed
40 CFR 65.728(a)(2)(ii), if any issues are found during the annual
inspection that require corrective action. These requirements are based
on our survey of the MON and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Surface Coating NESHAP, which included similar alternatives for
monitoring the inlet stream temperature. The MON provided an option for
monitoring the inlet stream temperature with the requirement of a 12-
month check of the catalyst bed; this option was provided to
accommodate emissions streams with low flow or diluted concentrations
in which it would not always be possible to achieve a measurable
temperature differential.
As determined under the MON, when monitoring only the inlet
temperature, a catalyst-activity-level check also is needed. This is
because catalyst beds can become poisoned and rendered ineffective
without any apparent change in operation. The proposed sampling,
analysis and inspection requirements discussed above are modeled after
the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP,
which expand on the MON's requirement to conduct a 12-month check of
the catalyst bed. We are providing the option to determine the schedule
for sampling and analysis based on the degradation of the catalyst to
provide flexibility for multiple source categories that may reference
the Uniform Standards, while ensuring that catalyst beds are replaced
or that other corrective actions are taken in a timely manner. A
referencing subpart may determine the specific sampling and analysis
schedule, in order to ensure compliance, prevent excessive downtime or
avoid unreasonable costs to an individual source category.
We have included this option in subpart M only for sources in which
the temperature differential between the inlet and outlet of the
catalytic oxidizer during normal operating conditions is less than 10
degrees Celsius. We are not proposing this option for sources with a
temperature differential of greater than 10 degrees Celsius because
inlet and outlet temperature monitoring is a more accurate method of
parameter monitoring and should be used, if possible, to measure the
temperature differential.
As discussed for small boilers and process heaters in this section,
we have not included the design evaluation or performance test
exemptions included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS for oxidizers that
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart H, but only
those oxidizers burning hazardous waste who have certified compliance
with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. Additionally, as
discussed for small boilers and process heaters, we have not included
the subpart SS provision allowing oxidizers with a minimum temperature
and residence time to omit the rationale documentation for the design
evaluation.
Absorbers. In developing the proposed standards for absorbers, we
have incorporated the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS and added several monitoring options to accommodate the many
absorber designs that may be used. Alternative monitoring approaches
for absorbers have been the most commonly requested alternative by
industry under current rules. Because of this, we have incorporated
multiple monitoring schemes based upon the alternatives approved by the
EPA, the different monitoring schemes in various chemical sector rules
and support documents prepared by the EPA for the compliance assurance
monitoring (CAM) regulation. (See Technical Guidance Document:
Compliance Assurance Monitoring, August 1998, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html.) Furthermore, because halogenated
scrubbers are a type of absorber and the monitoring requirements are
the same, we have merged the requirements for halogen scrubbers into
the proposed standards for absorbers to reduce redundant text. We
believe that integrating these additional monitoring options into the
proposed standards will reduce the need for owners and operators to
request the use of alternative monitoring requirements and for the EPA
to review these requests, thereby improving the efficiency of the
regulatory process. This is consistent with the objectives of Executive
Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, which requires
that we periodically review existing regulations to examine ways to
improve regulatory efficacy or reduce burden.
We are proposing the installation and operation of either a CEMS or
a CPMS, following the requirements in Tables 1 or 2 of proposed subpart
M. As discussed in the general monitoring requirements in section V.B.1
of this preamble, we have included provisions for both CPMS and CEMS to
accommodate the variety of sources that may be controlled by a
referencing subpart.
The most critical parameter for monitoring absorption systems is
liquid flow to the absorber, therefore we are requiring liquid flow be
monitored for all absorption systems, but have provided an option for
monitoring of the liquid-to-gas ratio. Rather than calculating one
minimum flow rate at maximum operating conditions that must be
continuously adhered to, this alternative provision allows a facility
to optimize the liquid flow for varying gas flow rates. By using a
liquid-to-gas ratio, sources may save resources by reducing the liquid
rate with reductions in gas flow due to periods of lower production
rates.
Pressure drop is also a valuable operating parameter to monitor for
absorbers. It can signal abnormal column conditions such as plugging,
channeling or mal-distribution of the packing. We are proposing that
you monitor the pressure drop for all absorbers as long as the normal
pressure drop across the absorber is greater than 5 inches of water. If
the pressure drop is typically less than 5 inches of water, it is not a
sensitive monitor for absorber performance. We have also included a
requirement to monitor pH for acid gas absorbers. For non-water
absorbers used for VOC control, we are proposing that the chemical
strength and flow rate of the chemical must be monitored. Monitoring
the oxidation strength and flow rate of the chemical will ensure that
enough chemical is being added to the absorber to attain at least the
required amount of absorption. For particulate and metal absorbers, if
the pressure drop is normally less than 5 inches of water, the owner or
operator will have the choice of monitoring the inlet and outlet gas
temperature; the specific gravity and outlet gas temperature; or the
liquid feed pressure and outlet gas temperature. These monitoring
parameters provide information on whether there has been sufficient
contact between the liquid and gas.
Similar choices were provided for VOC absorbers if the normal
pressure drop across the absorbers is less than 5 inches of water and
the scrubbing liquid is water. The source would monitor the inlet and
outlet gas temperatures, or the liquid feed pressure and outlet gas
temperature.
Adsorbers. We are proposing standards for adsorbers used as control
devices, based on the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. We have
clarified language in the proposed adsorber requirements in order to
develop a more inclusive set of
[[Page 17957]]
standards. Specifically, we have revised the former subpart SS
requirements for ``carbon adsorbers'' to apply to ``adsorbers,'' and
modified the applicability to pertain to adsorbers containing any type
of adsorbent such as carbon, zeolite or adsorbing polymers. These
proposed standards address many different adsorber configurations
existing in service today, including carbon adsorbers; adsorbers that
use adsorbing media other than carbon; adsorbers that use vacuum as a
regeneration technique; adsorber systems that use steam or other media
for regeneration; and adsorbers that are not regenerated on site. These
changes allow the proposed requirements to be more broadly referenced
in future CAA section 111 and 112 rulemakings and provides additional
options for control for multiple source categories. Additionally, this
change reduces the need for owners and operators to request the use of
alternative adsorbents or monitoring methods and for the EPA to review
these requests, thereby eliminating unnecessary regulatory burden to
industry and improving the efficiency of the regulatory process.
Many current regulations address carbon adsorber operation, and the
proposed rule has been written to address performance issues that have
been identified by the EPA in implementing and enforcing these rules.
Known performance issues include: The regeneration frequency of the
adsorbent; the effectiveness of regeneration; the life of the adsorbent
material before replacement is required; mechanical issues with the
system operation including valve sequencing; and for non-regenerative
systems, the expected life of the bed before replacement. The proposed
rule incorporates different monitoring requirements for adsorption
systems based on our review of 40 CFR part 63, subparts G, SS, GGG,
MMM, FFFF, GGGGG and BBBBBB, as well as monitoring approaches that have
been outlined and approved by the EPA in monitoring alternative
requests.
We are proposing the use of CEMS or CPMS to ensure the adsorption
system operates consistently; we have included parametric monitoring
provisions in Table 2 of subpart M in order to accommodate systems
where a CEMS is not used. Because there is no single parameter you can
monitor to ensure that all operating aspects are functioning properly,
the proposal combines several monitoring approaches, each of which
addresses common adsorber system performance issues. These include: (1)
Monitoring of the regeneration process, (2) establishing and adhering
to a regeneration frequency, (3) daily verification of system operating
parameters and (4) routine sampling of the vent stream.
The regeneration process monitoring provisions for non-vacuum
systems include regeneration stream flow and adsorber temperature.
These are key parameters to ensure the adsorption bed is sufficiently
desorbed at the start of an adsorption cycle, and have long been known
to influence adsorption performance. We have added the requirement to
establish and adhere to a pre-defined interval for regeneration
frequency in order to prevent overloading the bed and possibly
incurring breakthrough during the adsorption cycle before regeneration
is initiated. We considered alternatives to a pre-defined interval that
would take into account the organic loading on the bed, but determined
that regeneration on a prescribed schedule provides greater assurance
that there would be sufficient adsorptive capacity at all times.
Regenerative adsorption processes are typically multiple bed
systems with complicated valve and piping arrangements designed to
handle the vent streams and desorption streams on a batch basis.
Because the consistent operation of the valves in these systems is
critical to performance, we have included requirements for daily
verification of the adsorber valve sequencing and cycle time. This
daily system check will ensure that the adsorber is operating with
proper valve sequencing and cycle time.
While adsorption systems can achieve high levels of efficiency for
removal of organic compounds from vent streams, performance degrades
over time as the adsorption media deteriorates or becomes fouled.
Because of this known performance deterioration, and because there are
many mechanical elements in the system which can cause performance
problems, we are proposing weekly measurements of the adsorber bed
outlet VOC or regulated material concentration over the last 5 minutes
of an adsorption cycle for each adsorber bed. These measurements are
not meant to be a check against the emissions limit established by the
referencing subpart; rather, it is a check to determine if the absorber
performance is deteriorating and/or has deviated from typical
operation. By conducting weekly checks, the owner or operator will
establish knowledge of typical operating conditions, so that if
performance does degrade, it will become clear based on changes in the
weekly measurements. We are proposing that the owner or operator
establish a maximum normal concentration to compare to the weekly
measurements. If a measurement is obtained that is above the maximum
normal concentration, a corrective action process must be initiated
within 8 hours. We are proposing that you must develop a corrective
action plan that includes investigation of the adsorbent and its
efficacy, the valve sequencing system and regeneration process, and
additional monitoring, as well as site-specific corrective actions
appropriate to the system. This plan is not required to be submitted to
the Administrator for approval, but is required to be kept as a record
per the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 65.742(j)(1).
Measurements for the weekly checks on each adsorber may be taken
with a portable analyzer using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
7 for open ended lines, or using chromatographic analysis. Acceptable
levels for end-of-cycle measurements, the maximum normal concentration
will be established based on a statistical evaluation of the last 5
minutes of at least eight adsorption cycles for each adsorber. Because
these measurements are taken in the last 5 minutes of the adsorption
cycle, they indicate the worst-case emissions over the adsorber cycle.
Therefore, they are not indicators of compliance with the emission
limit, but instead are indications of non-normal operation, which
trigger a corrective action. An adsorber would not be considered to be
in deviation unless three consecutive weekly measurements are taken
that are above the maximum normal concentration; if the requirement to
initiate corrective action within 8 hours is not met; or if a weekly
measurement is not performed. See section VII of this preamble for a
discussion of the economic and cost impacts of these requirements.
Because the materials desorbed during the regeneration process are
regulated materials and are either recovered or disposed of, we are
proposing explicit requirements to treat the regulated materials
extracted from a regenerative system as process wastewater or vent
streams subject to control, as specified by the referencing subpart.
Very few previously published rules have addressed adsorption
systems, which are not regenerated onsite. Because there is wide
application of non-regenerative adsorption systems, we are including
provisions for these systems in the proposed rule. For clarity, we have
differentiated the proposed requirements for absorbers generated onsite
and the requirements for non-regenerative adsorbers or
[[Page 17958]]
regenerative adsorbers that are regenerated offsite in separate
sections.
As a guideline for the proposed monitoring, we used the National
Emission Standards for Site Remediation (40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGGGG), as well as monitoring approaches approved by the EPA in
alternative requests for monitoring and in enforcement actions to
address historical compliance issues with non-regenerated adsorbers. We
are proposing CEMS monitoring for the adsorber exhaust. Alternatively,
we are proposing requirements for dual adsorbent beds in series and
daily monitoring. We have prescribed a dual bed system because the use
of a single bed does not ensure continuous compliance unless the bed is
replaced significantly before breakthrough. A dual bed system will
allow one bed to be saturated before it is replaced and, therefore,
makes efficient use of the adsorber bed without exceeding the emission
limits. Facilities utilizing non-regenerative adsorbers must typically
replace the adsorber bed at the end of the absorbent life and already
have a second bed onsite. Therefore, we have determined that these
requirements would not impose a cost increase; it would only require a
second adsorber bed to be purchased earlier than it would have under
previous rules. In addition, once the second adsorber was purchased,
the source would need to purchase and install canisters at the same
rate they would have under previous rules. In fact, the source could
likely reduce costs over time because the adsorber beds can be used to
a greater saturation level without risking non-compliance. Under
current rules that do not require a second bed, sources must replace
the beds, based on temperature readings, the vendor's bed life
expectancy estimates or past history, and may replace the bed
prematurely in order to avoid non-compliance. The burden of purchasing
the initial additional adsorber bed, when compared to the large
increase in compliance assurance, is small.
Similar to regenerative adsorbers, in order to monitor performance
deterioration, we are proposing measurements of VOC or regulated
materials using a portable analyzer or chromatographic analysis for
non-regenerative absorbers. We are proposing that these measurements be
taken daily on the outlet of the first adsorber bed in series using a
sample port. Furthermore, in order to relieve some monitoring burden,
we have included the option to reduce the frequency of monitoring with
the portable analyzer from daily to weekly or monthly. If you choose
this option, you would first be required to establish an average
adsorber bed life. For periods when more than 2 months remain on the
bed life, monthly monitoring can be conducted, and when more than 2
weeks remain on the bed life, weekly monitoring can be conducted. For a
discussion of the economic and cost impacts of these monitoring
requirements, see section VII of this preamble.
Condensers. The proposed standards include requirements for
condensers used as control devices, which are based on the standards of
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. Subpart SS requires that ``exit (product
side)'' temperature be monitored; the proposed rule clarifies that the
temperature of the ``condensate receiver'' be monitored. The proposed
standards require a design evaluation be conducted on condensers
instead of a performance test to demonstrate compliance. The
equilibrium calculation for condensers using the actual measured
temperature and a thorough understanding of the stream composition is
an accurate method for estimating emissions in the exiting gas stream
from a condenser. A performance test for condensers generally does not
provide additional information that equilibrium calculations would not
provide. Furthermore, requiring a design evaluation will reduce overall
costs for owners and operators who are referred to the Uniform
Standards for Control Devices. However, a performance test could be
required by the referencing subpart if it is determined to be more
appropriate for a given source category.
As part of the design evaluation, we are proposing that you use the
engineering evaluation methodologies in 40 CFR 65.835(d) with the
temperature of the condensate receiver to determine the outlet organic
regulated material concentration. You would then be required to show
the concentration meets the emission standard established in the
referencing subpart, or to conduct additional calculations to
demonstrate a percent reduction or aggregate percent reduction for
batch process vents in a referencing subpart was being met.
In the design evaluation for condensers, we have included a
provision to consider conditions under which entrainment of the
condensing liquid could occur, as well as the other operating
conditions traditionally included in a condenser design evaluation,
such as the vent stream flow rate, relative humidity and temperature.
Entrainment is an important factor in condenser performance that should
be considered in a design evaluation in order to document that the
condenser achieves the required emission reduction from a referencing
subpart.
Biofilters. We are proposing standards for biofilters used as
control devices in proposed 40 CFR 65.748. We are providing these
requirements as an additional control option for the Uniform Standards
for Control Devices in order to add flexibility for industry.
Compliance requirements for biofilters were included in a final
amendment to the MON (71 FR 40333, July 14, 2006) as a response to
comment by commenters. The final amendments specified that biofilters
are an option for complying with the 95-percent reduction emission
limit for batch process operations. A biofilter control option was not
made available for continuous process operations in the MON because of
concerns that biofilters could not meet the 98-percent control
efficiency standard for continuous process operations. We are proposing
biofilters as a control option for both batch and continuous process
operations if you can demonstrate compliance with the emission
limitation or percent reduction required by the referencing subpart. We
are proposing you install a CEMS capable of measuring regulated
materials, or you may install a temperature CPMS for the biofilter bed.
In biofiltration, microbial activity is the primary means by which
the process stream is controlled; the effectiveness of the device is
maximized by maintaining preferential conditions for the growth of
appropriate microbes. Temperature is a significant factor affecting the
growth and maintenance of healthy microbes within the bed--temperatures
that are too high or too low will result in reduced microbe colonies
and reduced performance for the bed. It is also a good indicator of the
health of the microbes since healthy microbes will generate heat
themselves. Therefore, we are requiring bed temperature monitoring to
ensure that the biofilter can achieve and maintain the emission limits
specified in the referencing subpart. For a discussion of the economic
and cost impacts of these requirements, see section VII of this
preamble.
Given the concerns expressed in the preamble to the final MON rule
regarding continuous process operations, we are also proposing
requirements to monitor the moisture content of the biofilter bed and
pressure drop through the biofilter bed to ensure that the biofilter
can achieve the emission limit or percent reduction requirements of the
referencing subpart. The moisture content of the biofilter bed
[[Page 17959]]
is another indicator of the health of microbes. Pressure drop through
the biofilter bed is important to ensure the filter bed is not plugged.
In lieu of these additional monitoring requirements, we are also
considering requiring weekly measurements of VOC or regulated material
at the outlet of each biofilter bed using a portable analyzer or
chromatic analyzer to monitor performance deterioration, similar to
those requirements proposed for adsorbers. We are soliciting comment,
including the identification or submittal of information or data, as to
whether biofilter bed temperature monitoring would be enough for
continuous compliance demonstration. Additionally, we are soliciting
comments and supporting data or studies that assess the effectiveness
of measuring additional parameters to ensure performance and
compliance.
The MON does not allow a design evaluation to demonstrate
compliance for biofilters; however, we have included provisions for a
design evaluation if the referencing subpart allows one. A design
evaluation for a biofilter may be adequate to demonstrate compliance
for certain source categories; however, this will need to be considered
on a source category-specific basis and justified in the referencing
subpart rulemaking.
Sorbent injection and collection systems. In order to provide
additional control technologies that will expand the options for future
rulemakings, we are proposing requirements for sorbent injection
systems that remove pollutants from exhaust gas. Sorbent injection is
an emissions control technique that was developed to reduce pollutants
from exhaust gas, primarily from combustion sources. The sorbent
injected into the gas stream may be activated carbon, lime or any other
type of material injected into a gas stream for the purposes of
capturing and removing regulated materials.
Activated carbon is used in sorbent injection systems where control
of mercury or dioxin and furan emissions is required. Lime or other
sorbents may also be used in sorbent injection systems to remove acid
gasses, such as hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid. Sorbent injection
is used in conjunction with a filtration device designed to collect the
sorbent after injection.
As a basis for developing the proposed rule, we have adapted the
requirements for sorbent injection systems that were included in the
final rule for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (75 FR 54970, September
9, 2010). This recent NESHAP determined monitoring and performance
specification requirements for sorbent injection systems and carrier
gas systems that reflect the latest technical developments for these
control options. In addition, facilities complying with the proposed
provisions for sorbent injection would also be required to meet the
requirements for fabric filters in proposed 40 CFR 65.762. The Portland
Cement NESHAP requires facilities to specify and use the brand and type
of sorbent used during the performance test until a subsequent
performance test is conducted. We are proposing that you would be
required to test if you wanted to substitute a different brand or type
of sorbent. Although the Portland Cement NESHAP allows an owner or
operator to substitute different brands or types of sorbent without
having to do a new performance test (provided that the replacement has
equivalent or improved properties compared to the sorbent used in the
previous performance test), we have modified the proposed standards to
require a new performance test if the sorbent is replaced with a
different brand and type of sorbent than was used in the most recent
performance test. As we intend the Uniform Standards for Control
Devices to be referenced in both NSPS and NESHAP rulemakings across
multiple source categories, this change ensures that the control device
will continue to meet the emission limits or percent reduction
requirements of a referencing subpart when a change of sorbent occurs.
A referencing subpart may override this retest requirement if it is
determined in its rulemaking to be unnecessary for the source category
being regulated.
Provisions for a design evaluation for sorbent collection systems
are proposed for this rule in the event that a referencing subpart
allows a design evaluation to be conducted in lieu of a performance
test. Because this is a relatively new control technology, there were
no current rules that provided guidance for a design evaluation of a
sorbent collection system. Therefore, we have developed the proposed
requirements using recently published articles on activated carbon
injection as a control technology. This research indicates that the
parameters identified in proposed 40 CFR 65.760(d) provide the best
evaluation of sorbent injection system performance.
Other control or devices. We have incorporated requirements for
performance testing and the development of monitoring requirements on a
case-by-case basis in order to address control devices that may be used
by industry, but are not described specifically in this rule. These
requirements are unchanged from the current provisions of 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS. Additionally, if other major control devices are used
in specific source categories as a primary means for control, the
referencing subpart can lay out such requirements needed in order to
demonstrate compliance.
4. How did the EPA determine requirements for fuel gas systems?
In consideration of our experience implementing previous rules
addressing fuel gas systems as control devices, we are proposing
updated standards that clarify the definition of fuel gas system and
ensure that these systems are achieving good combustion and control.
Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, owners and operators are permitted to
route vent streams from storage tanks, transfer equipment and equipment
leaks to a fuel gas system as a method of control (this compliance
option is not specifically provided for process operations). Fuel gas
systems are considered a part of the process, therefore process vent
streams that are routed to a fuel gas system are not considered vent
streams requiring control because they are not released to the
atmosphere. The proposed rule does not specifically state that this
control option is only for equipment leaks, storage tanks and transfer
operations emissions. It is not necessary to allow this option for only
some of the emission unit types, given that the proposed Uniform
Standards may be referenced in future NESHAP and NSPS for multiple
source categories and industry types, and those rulemakings can
determine whether to restrict the control options for specific types of
emission units.
As previously discussed for small boilers and process heaters in
section V.B.3 of this preamble, small boilers or process heaters
receiving vent streams subject to subpart M with a capacity less than
44 MW (in which the vent stream is introduced with combustion air or as
a secondary fuel) would be subject to the requirements of proposed 40
CFR 65.724, whether they are part of a fuel gas system or not. If your
fuel gas system directs the vent stream to small boilers or process
heaters, you would still be required to meet the performance testing
and monitoring requirements for small boilers and process heaters. As
discussed in section V.B.3 of this preamble, larger boilers and process
heaters in which the vent gas stream is introduced with or as the
primary fuel have been recognized as units that can be confidently
assumed to achieve good combustion. There is not
[[Page 17960]]
the same confidence in the performance of small boilers and process
heaters; therefore, we are proposing that the units be tested and
continuously monitored.
We expect, in most cases, the vent gas stream of fuel gas systems
will be introduced as the primary fuel and/or will be routed to larger
units. We want to continue to encourage the use of this otherwise waste
gas. However, if small boilers and process heaters are attached to the
fuel gas system, then you would be required to conduct performance
testing and monitoring. We do not expect this scenario to be common. We
also considered defining a fuel gas system such that the vent gas must
be introduced with or as a primary fuel, but determined that this would
reduce flexibility for sources.
Under the proposed standards, all fuel gas systems that are in
regulated material service must perform quarterly LDAR monitoring and
would be required to meet the applicable provisions of proposed 40 CFR
part 65, subpart J (see section IV.A of this preamble) as they apply to
the individual equipment components that comprise the fuel gas system.
We are proposing these requirements to ensure that a vent stream in
regulated material service is properly routed by the fuel gas system
and delivered to the combustion device for destruction. We expect that
most fuel gas systems meet the applicability of the LDAR requirements
and are already conducting LDAR monitoring; therefore, these
requirements are not expected to introduce a new or unnecessary
regulatory burden for industry.
The proposed standards revise the definition of fuel gas system to
include the requirement that the fuel in the fuel gas system be
nonhalogenated. It is common for chemical sector rules to include a
prohibition on combustion of halogens and a requirement for hydrogen
halides or halogen reduction after combustion. However, this
requirement was not explicit for vent streams routed to a fuel gas
system under previous rules, and it is not our intent to allow
halogenated streams to be combusted without additional control. Because
fuel from fuel gas systems can be used in any number of combustion
sources, hydrogen halide and halogen reduction after combustion is less
likely to be feasible. Additionally, because process vent streams could
be routed to the fuel gas system and not be subject to the rule, yet
could still contain significant amounts of halogens, we are proposing
this definition change to ensure that HAP are not created through the
combustion of a regulated material.
5. How did the EPA determine the proposed requirements for fabric
filters?
We have incorporated requirements for fabric filters in subpart M
with the intent to simplify future rulemakings that would refer to the
Uniform Standards. The proposed monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements may be referenced by new or revised NSPS or NESHAP that
would establish standards for PM or other regulated materials
controlled by fabric filters and not previously covered by other
consolidated rulemakings. As such, the consolidation of fabric filter
requirements in subpart M facilitates more efficient rulemaking and
ensures consistent standards for these control devices across multiple
source categories. The monitoring, design evaluation and recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for fabric filters were modeled after the
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMM, as referenced by the MON) and the final rule for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry, published on September 9, 2010 (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLL, 75 FR 54970). The proposed requirements include the
installation of a bag leak detection system equipped with an alarm that
will sound when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset
level is detected.
The Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP required that the bag leak
detection system be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual
cubic meter (mg/acm) or less. Because we intend the proposed Uniform
Standards to be applicable for the majority of source categories
complying with MACT, we considered that there may be future rulemakings
that need to specify lower PM emission limits and would require a lower
allowable detection limit for the bag leak detectors. Based on vendor
literature, modern bag leak detection systems are capable of detecting
baseline emissions as low as 1 mg/acm (see, Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997, incorporated by
reference). Therefore, we are requiring that the bag leak detection
system be certified at a detection level of 1 mg/acm or less. This
requirement may be overridden by a referencing subpart in future
rulemakings, as appropriate, based on the specific needs of the source
category.
We have also added a provision previously included in the Major
Source Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters NESHAP (76 FR 15608, March 21, 2011), requiring that the bag
leak detection system must be operated and maintained such that the
alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a
6-month period. We are requiring records of the total alarm time and
corrective actions taken following an alarm sounding for demonstration
of compliance. These requirements are operation and maintenance
requirements that could be adopted in future rulemakings to ensure that
the fabric filter is being operated at the conditions for which the
control device is meeting the emission limit specified in the
referencing subpart.
Additionally, the proposed rule requires that you conduct a
performance test on your fabric filter, but provisions have been
included for those situations where a design evaluation is acceptable
and allowed by the referencing subpart (see sections V.A.9 and V.B.8 of
this preamble).
6. How did the EPA determine the performance testing requirements?
The performance testing requirements that we are proposing are
modeled after specific requirements from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS,
which are based on performance testing requirements previously
developed by the EPA for use in implementing standards that could apply
to a variety of chemical industry sources.
We have organized the performance testing requirements to group
similar topics together, and added new methods for performance testing
to develop a more generic and inclusive set of control requirements
that may be easily referenced in future rulemakings. In addition to
using the term ``regulated material'' (see General differences between
proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart M and 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS at
the beginning of section V.B of this preamble), we are proposing
performance testing requirements that reflect this broader range of
pollutants.
Although based on language from 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, where
we propose that you conduct all performance tests at maximum
representative operating conditions for continuous process operations,
we have defined maximum representative operating conditions to be those
conditions that result in the most challenging condition for the
control device. In an effort to provide more flexibility to owners and
operators regarding the identification of the
[[Page 17961]]
proper testing conditions, the most challenging condition for the
control device may include, but is not limited to, the highest HAP mass
loading rate to the control device, or the highest HAP mass loading
rate of constituents that approach the limits of solubility for
scrubbing media. The EPA understands that there may be cases where
efficiencies are dependent on other characteristics of emission
streams, including the characteristics of components and the operating
principles of the devices. For example, the solubility of emission
stream components in scrubbing media, or emission stream component
affinity in carbon adsorption systems can also define the most
challenging condition for a particular control device.
For batch process operations, we are proposing consistent
requirements to those in 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG and FFFF, and are
requiring that you develop an emissions profile and conduct your
performance test at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical
worst-case conditions. Although continuous operations tend to have
products and operations that remain relatively constant, the control
devices for batch operations may be subject to a wide variability of
products and emission stream characteristics, and a performance test at
``maximum representative'' conditions for batch operations may not be
representative at a later date when the products have changed. Absolute
worst-case conditions are based on an emissions profile that shows
periods of time when the maximum load, the regulated material loading
or stream composition (including non-regulated material) is the most
challenging condition for the final control device. To provide
flexibility for sources, we are also proposing that you may test under
hypothetical worst-case conditions as an alternative. Hypothetical
worst-case conditions are simulated test conditions that, at a minimum,
contain the highest hourly load of regulated material emissions that
would be predicted to vent to the final control device, based on an
emissions profile.
The agency's intent, when requiring the development of an emissions
profile, is to determine the maximum HAP loading to a control device
over time. Therefore, the proposed rule requires that the emissions to
the device be evaluated by plotting HAP emissions versus time. To
provide multiple options for compliance, we have allowed for the
emission profile to be determined by process, by equipment or by
capture and control device limitation (this would be dependent on how
you choose to characterize your worst-case conditions). When sources
test under worst-case conditions, this reduces, and may eliminate, in
some cases, the need for any retesting at a later date when conditions
change. If a source tested under normal operating conditions, then any
change from these conditions would trigger a need to retest the source
under the revised normal operating conditions. The concept of worst-
case conditions allows sources to anticipate potential changes so that
only one (initial) test is generally required, which would reduce the
burden on the source. We note that the referencing subpart could
require a re-test (e.g., annual or every 5 years) if it is appropriate
to demonstrate compliance for a given source category; this would be
determined during the rulemaking process for the referencing subpart.
Building off the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the
MON uses a hierarchy to determine applicable requirements for combined
emission streams in 40 CFR 63.2450(c)(2). For example, the MON allows
you to comply with only the batch process operation requirements for
combined batch and continuous process operations. However, for the
proposed rule, we are not establishing a hierarchy because the
referencing subpart must consider the applicable statutory requirements
for the specific type of rulemaking (CAA section 111 or section 112).
Instead, we are proposing that you must meet all requirements for each
emission stream type in a combined emission stream (i.e., both
continuous and batch process operation requirements must be met). The
proposed rule is written in this way to ensure compliance for each
emission stream. A hierarchy may be appropriate for certain source
categories; however, this will need to be considered on a source
category-specific basis during the development of the referencing
subpart. A referencing subpart can override specific requirements in
the Uniform Standard, as appropriate.
We are proposing that if you make a change to process equipment or
operating conditions that would affect the correlation between the
operating parameter values of a control device and the emission
reduction performance of that control device, and would render the
previously established operating limits ineffective, you must conduct a
performance test within 180 days of the date of startup of the change.
This performance test would be necessary to establish new operating
limits and demonstrate that you are in compliance with the applicable
emission limit of the referencing subpart. For instance, a facility
could institute changes that increase the mass flow to a thermal
oxidizer, requiring a higher operating limit for temperature to
maintain compliance with the emission standard of the referencing
subpart. This proposed requirement is necessary to ensure that the
control device remains effective for compliance with the referencing
subpart.
We have consolidated the allowed test methods in Table 5 of subpart
M for ease of reading. The proposed rule provides test methods based on
the types of emissions limits that we anticipate would be specified in
a referencing subpart. As was done in the MON (for gas streams
containing formaldehyde) and in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP
(for gas streams containing carbon disulfide), we have provided
specific test methods for determining compliance when formaldehyde or
carbon disulfide makes up a significant portion of the vent stream.
Consistent with our previous determinations under these rules, we have
ascertained that not all methods detect these compounds accurately and
these specific methods are necessary in the proposed Uniform Standards.
We also are proposing that you may use Method 320 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A as an alternative to using Method 18 or Method 26/26A of
40 CFR part 60, appendices A-6 through A-8, to determine compliance
with a specific organic regulated material compound outlet
concentration or percent reduction emission limit, or a hydrogen halide
emission limit specified in the referencing subpart. In response to a
public comment, the Method 320 of CFR part 63, appendix A option was
added to the MON at final promulgation (68 FR 63852, November 10,
2003). The EPA declared that Method 320 of CFR part 63, appendix A was
an acceptable method to demonstrate compliance for any type of batch or
continuous vent stream. We have augmented this provision by specifying
that EPA Method 320 may only be used to demonstrate compliance with a
halogen emission limit if you can show that there are no diatomic-
halogen molecules present in the vent stream being tested. For vent
streams with diatomic-halogens molecules, we have determined that EPA
Method 18 and EPA Method 26/26A are more effective. In addition, we are
not allowing EPA Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 and EPA Method 320 to test
for total regulated material because these methods only work for
determining the quantity of known pollutants; therefore, you could
[[Page 17962]]
fail to identify the ``total'' regulated material.
Because a referencing subpart may have requirements for organic HAP
and metal HAP, or requirements for use of a surrogate, such as PM or
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for metal HAP, we have
incorporated provisions from the MON that tell you how to determine
compliance with a PM or PM2.5 emission limit specified in a
referencing subpart. (As discussed in section II.C of this preamble,
the referencing subpart would establish and provide rationale for the
use of a surrogate.) As determined under the MON, Method 29 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-8 allows you to determine the quantity of each HAP
metal at the inlet and outlet of the control device(s). Furthermore,
the MON allows for a second option, since controls for PM would also
control the HAP metals, to use Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3
to determine the quantity of PM at the inlet and outlet of the control
device(s). We are proposing Methods 201A and 202 at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix M, or, if the stack contains entrained water droplets (e.g.,
immediately after a wet scrubber), Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-3 and Method 202 for total PM2.5. We have determined that
EPA Methods 201 and 202 are more accurate for measurement of
PM2.5. It is our determination that the methods proposed
represent the best and most recent methods for measurement of HAP, VOC,
PM and PM2.5.
7. How did the EPA determine the requirements for batch processing
operations?
We are proposing language from the MON and the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG) to accommodate batch
process operations. The MON primarily references the batch process
operation provisions in the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. The
proposed standards are intended to be referenced from multiple
regulations representing different source categories, and do not set
group determinations or levels of control.
We have included provisions in proposed 40 CFR 65.826 and 40 CFR
65.827 explaining how compliance should be demonstrated for the
different emission limit formats that a referencing subpart may use for
batch process operations. The language accommodates percent reduction
or outlet concentration limits for control devices. We have included
the emission limit format from the MON that requires the owner or
operator to show compliance with a percent reduction by aggregating
emissions over the full batch process. These requirements would apply
only when a referencing subpart requires the owner or operator to show
compliance with a percent reduction using this method (see section
V.A.8 of this preamble). We have included language (see equations 29
through 31 of proposed 40 CFR 65.835(a)) clarifying how to determine
compliance with a percent reduction where a referencing subpart
requires the owner or operator to aggregate batch emissions. The
equations illustrate how you would compare the sums of the controlled
and uncontrolled emissions for all batch process operations subject to
control within the process to calculate the percent reduction achieved.
This is a clarification of the MON language, which stated that
uncontrolled and controlled emissions should be compared to demonstrate
compliance, but did not provide additional details to explain how this
should be done.
We are proposing engineering evaluation methodologies that are
incorporated by reference from section 3 of the EPA's Emissions
Inventory Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for
Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities, August
2007, Final, (EPA Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Volume
II: Chapter 16). These methods are similar to those used in the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP, but include some refinements, such
as an iterative methodology for purging, or gas sweep of a partially
filled vessel emission episode. EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 also
contains additional methodologies (that were not included in the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP) for calculating emissions from
charging to a partially filled vessel with miscible contents, and
evaporation from an open top vessel or spill. We are proposing that you
conduct an engineering assessment to calculate uncontrolled emissions
from other emissions episodes not described in EPA EIIP Volume II:
Chapter 16. We are soliciting comment on the proposed use of EPA EIIP
Volume II: Chapter 16.
8. How did the EPA determine the requirements for compliance through
design evaluation?
With the exception of condensers, the proposed standards under
subpart M require performance testing to demonstrate compliance with
the applicable standard. However, to provide flexibility, we are
including requirements for a design evaluation that could apply to non-
flare control devices if it is allowed by the referencing subpart. For
condensers, we are proposing that you must conduct a design evaluation
(see discussion for condensers in section V.B.3 of this preamble).
Subpart M is structured such that general requirements for
conducting a design evaluation are included under one section (proposed
40 CFR 65.850). More specific requirements pertaining to information
that must be included in the design evaluation for each type of device
are included in the corresponding section for that control device. The
requirements for determining the components to include in a design
evaluation are based on 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, which were
previously developed by the EPA for use in implementing a generic set
of control standards that could be applied for multiple source
categories. To ensure that sources can demonstrate compliance with the
referencing subpart, we are proposing that you must prepare both a
monitoring description and design evaluation. The monitoring
description provides documentation that the source is maintaining the
continuous monitoring equipment such that the control device can meet
the emission limits specified in the referencing subpart. For the
monitoring description, you would be required to choose the parameters,
the operating limit(s), the monitoring frequency and the averaging time
for each operating parameter, based on site-specific information,
manufacturer's specifications, engineering judgment or other
significant information. Your design evaluation would include
documentation demonstrating that the control device being used achieves
the required emission limit of a referencing subpart, taking into
account the composition of the vent stream entering the control device,
flow and regulated material concentration. There were no changes made
to the design evaluation provisions except for the changes to: (1)
Small boilers and process heaters, (2) oxidizers regarding the minimum
temperature and residence time and (3) the inclusion of a design
evaluation for biofilters when allowed by the referencing subpart (see
previous discussion in section V.B.3 of this preamble).
9. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for this
proposed standard?
The notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that we
are proposing are similar to those required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS. However, we have streamlined the periodic
[[Page 17963]]
compliance reporting with title V semiannual reporting requirements,
incorporated updates for clarification, left out provisions that are
redundant or unnecessary and created recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to address any monitoring requirements included in the
Uniform Standards. Many of these details are discussed in section
VI.B.6 of this preamble.
Averaging Periods. We are proposing records of the daily or
operating block average (for batch operations) value of each
continuously monitored parameter or emissions.
Although some regulations under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61
require 3-hour averaging (e.g., the SOCMI Air Oxidation NSPS, 40 CFR 60
Subpart III; the SOCMI Distillation Operations NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart
NNN; and the SOCMI Reactor Processes NSPS, 40 CFR 60 Subpart RRR), many
of the part 63 regulations require daily averages. Specifically, with
the exception of the recently proposed polyvinyl chloride and
copolymers (PVC) rule (40 CFR 63, subpart J for PVC Production; 76 FR
29528, May 20, 2011), which requires 3-hour averaging, daily averaging
periods are used in all past part 63 NESHAP affecting the chemical and
refining sectors. Therefore, the EPA has decided to allow daily
averaging for all control devices, unless otherwise provided under a
referencing subpart.
We also do not consider daily averaging a relaxation of the
previous NSPS that currently require more frequent averaging.
Specifically, the 3-hour averages in NSPS and the daily averages in
part 63 should not be compared only considering the averaging time, but
one should also consider the meaning of out-of-range results. Under the
NSPS, an out-of-range 3-hour average does not necessarily mean the
source is out of compliance. Under the 40 CFR part 60 General
Provisions, compliance with emission standards is determined by a
performance test (see 40 CFR 60.11(a)). Under the 40 CFR part 63
General Provisions, it is clear that deviations from monitoring
parameter ranges are direct violations (see 40 CFR 63.6(e)).
Under the proposed Uniform Standards, we have adopted the
significance of out-of-range results from 40 CFR part 63; therefore, an
out-of-range parameter on a daily average basis is a violation. We
would allow the same out-of-range parameter determinations from 40 CFR
part 63 to be made in all referencing subparts, including regulations
under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61. Therefore, although facilities
from 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 61 referenced to the Uniform
Standards may become subject to daily averages in lieu of 3-hour
averages, they would also be considered out of compliance if the daily
average is out of range, provided this change is adopted in the
rulemaking for the referencing subpart.
We anticipate that the referencing subpart may ``override'' the
proposed daily averaging period with a stricter requirement if it is
determined that such a requirement would be necessary to maintain the
emission standard for the source category covered by the referencing
subpart. A good example of such a source category is the proposed PVC
Production NESHAP. It was determined for proposal that, for this source
category, 3-hour averages are necessary to meet MACT. We consider the
development of a referencing subpart at the appropriate time to make
these source-category specific decisions.
We are proposing that you must report the daily and operating block
averages for each continuously monitored parameter as part of the
semiannual periodic report submitted through the CEDRI (see section
II.F of this preamble). The EPA relies on the submittal of performance
test data and emissions and parametric monitoring data to conduct
effective reviews of CAA sections 111 and 112 standards, as well as
compliance determinations, emission factor development, residual risk
assessments and technology reviews. These emissions averages and
parameter averages could supply up-to-date information regarding the
capabilities of current industry technology, identify compliance issues
and supplement emissions test data for establishing emission factors,
improving regulation and improving the quality of emission inventories.
Collecting this data on an ongoing basis through CEDRI will greatly
reduce or eliminate the burden to industry and EPA from ICR efforts.
Recordkeeping and reporting of batch operations. The recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for batch operations were modeled after the
MON (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF) and Pharmaceuticals Production
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG). 40 CFR Part 63, subpart SS, as
promulgated, contains only provisions for combined continuous and batch
operations. We have drawn the requirements from 40 CFR part 63,
subparts GGG and FFFF because these NESHAP contain and clarify
technical requirements for batch process operations; in particular, the
MON improves upon some of the technical requirements of the
Pharmaceutical Production NESHAP and reflects a set of standards that
both industry and the EPA have experience in implementing. The
inclusion of requirements for batch operations allows the proposed
Uniform Standards to accommodate a wider range of source categories.
The proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements reflect our most
current survey of batch operations under 40 CFR part 63, subparts GGG
and FFFF.
The proposed subpart M includes a pre-compliance report for batch
processes, as does the MON and Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. This
report is a combination of data submittals and reports that require the
EPA review and approval prior to implementation and is, therefore, due
before the compliance date (6 months prior to the compliance date for
existing sources and to be submitted with the application for approval
of construction or reconstruction for new sources). While we have
designed the requirements for batch process operations to provide
flexible options for compliance for owners and operators, we must
ensure compliance with the MACT, GACT and BSER standards specified in
the referencing subpart. We contend that the pre-compliance report is a
valuable tool for the regulatory agency responsible for making
compliance determinations. The batch pre-compliance requirements
include providing details on the test conditions, data, calculations
and other information used to establish operating limits for all batch
operations, and rationale for why each operating limit indicates the
control device is meeting the specified emission limit of the
referencing subpart during each specific emission episode. If you used
an engineering assessment, as specified in 40 CFR 65.835(b)(2), you
would also include data or other information supporting a finding that
the emissions estimation equations in the proposed subpart M are
inappropriate. These data would include very detailed site-specific
information and complex rationale for the selection of operating limits
and emissions calculations. It is important that such data are reviewed
prior to compliance to provide time to revise the CEMS performance
evaluation and monitoring plan or the CPMS monitoring plan and conduct
any necessary onsite preparation for revised monitoring requirements,
based on the EPA concerns prior to the compliance date. This will
ensure that there are no periods of noncompliance resulting from
selection of an unacceptable approach. In the proposed Uniform
Standards, we are using the term ``batch pre-compliance report'' rather
than
[[Page 17964]]
``pre-compliance report'' because the report is submitted for only
batch processes and includes only the batch information listed in this
paragraph.
There are several items required in the pre-compliance report for
the two previous NESHAP that are not proposed in subpart M because they
are not related to the control devices covered by this proposed rule.
For example, we are not proposing requirements to determine wastewater
characteristics, as required by the Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP,
because we are not proposing requirements for wastewater facilities at
this time.
Several source categories, including the Miscellaneous Organic
Chemical Manufacturing source category and the Pharmaceuticals
Production source category, use non-dedicated, multipurpose equipment
that may be configured in numerous ways to accommodate different batch
processes. We anticipate that when a NSPS or NESHAP considers
referencing subpart M for a batch process operation, there could be a
need to anticipate alternate operating scenarios for the batch process.
As such, we are proposing these requirements in subpart M in order to
accommodate these alternate scenarios.
Fabric filter recordkeeping and reporting. We modeled the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for fabric filters after the
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP and the Portland Cement
Manufacturing NESHAP. These rulemakings reflect previous EPA
determinations for fabric filter control. We considered, but are not
proposing, that pre-compliance information be submitted for these
control devices. In particular, the Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production NESHAP and MON require an operation and maintenance plan and
corrective action plan be submitted as part of a pre-compliance report.
Instead, we are proposing that each bag leak detection system must be
installed, operated, calibrated and maintained in a manner consistent
with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations, and
in accordance with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September
1997. Therefore, we feel it is not necessary to pre-approve the fabric
filter plans when these requirements are followed. A future referencing
subpart may require prior approval if it is determined that it is
appropriate for a given source category and considering the applicable
statutory requirements for the specific rulemaking (e.g., MACT, GACT
and/or BSER standards), or we may choose to adopt separate requirements
for a particular source category in a referencing subpart. We are
proposing that the operation and maintenance plan and corrective action
plan for fabric filters be submitted as part of the Notification of
Compliance Status Report instead of a pre-compliance report. The
manufacturer's guidance and the EPA guidance document provide adequate
information for owners and operators to prepare appropriate operation
and maintenance and corrective action plans. We anticipate that fabric
filter operation does not vary enough to require site-specific pre-
review of these documents, although a referencing subpart may always
override these requirements for a given source category.
VI. Summary and Rationale for the Proposed Revision of 40 CFR Part 65
Uniform Standards General Provisions--Subpart H
This section summarizes and provides rationale for the supplemental
proposal for 40 CFR part 65, subpart H. This subpart was originally
proposed on January 6, 2012 (77 FR 960). This supplemental proposal
generally adds new language and sections applicable to proposed
subparts H, I, J and M. There are some changes to the language
originally proposed, but these are relatively small changes needed to
incorporate the additional Uniform Standards subparts.
In section VI of this preamble, the term ``we'' refers to the EPA
and the term ``you'' refers to owners and operators affected by the
proposed standards. All other entities are referred to by their
respective names (e.g., reviewing authorities.) Additionally, ``subpart
H'' refers to proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H.
A. Summary
In a previous proposal of the National Uniform Emission Standards
for Heat Exchangers (40 CFR part 65, subpart L), signed by the EPA
Administrator on November 30, 2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012), we
proposed general provisions in subpart H that would apply to all
sources subject to all Uniform Standards. In that proposal, we
specified that 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63, subpart A (i.e., referred to
in this preamble section VI as ``the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General
Provisions'') would still apply as the General Provisions for the
Uniform Standards, with relatively minor additions in subpart H. During
development of proposed 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M, we
reviewed this approach, in part under Executive Order 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, (see section II.A of this preamble
for further discussion of Executive Order 13563) to ensure that this
would be the best approach.
Based on this review, we have determined that certain reporting
provisions in the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions are not
consistent with each other (e.g., report names), and that these
differences could hamper efforts to provide compliance methods for all
sources under one part. Additionally, we have determined that some 40
CFR part 63 general provisions include more details (e.g., detailed
instructions for requesting a performance test waiver) that are not
provided for the same kind of provision in the 40 CFR parts 60 and 61
General Provisions (e.g., allowing a request for a performance test
waiver without detailed instructions). Applying these more detailed 40
CFR part 63 general provisions to sources covered under 40 CFR parts 60
and 61 would result in more clarity and would facilitate the compliance
process for sources regulated under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 that refer
to the Uniform Standards.
As such, we have concluded that the best approach to providing
general provisions for the 40 CFR part 65 Uniform Standards is to
consolidate some of the part 60, 61 and 63 general provisions, and to
include these consolidated general provisions in subpart H. For the
current proposal, we are issuing a supplemental proposal for subpart H
in order to include additional provisions applicable to all Uniform
Standards, as well as provisions applicable to individual Uniform
Standards in 40 CFR Part 65, Subparts I, J and M.
For this purpose, we are maintaining five sections of subpart H
proposed on January 6, 2012 (77 FR 960), and adding 12 new sections. Of
the five previously proposed sections, we are proposing to make changes
to three sections, as follows: (1) 40 CFR 65.200 will refer to 40 CFR
65.210, which specifies which general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR
parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to all Uniform Standards; (2) 40 CFR 65.265
will include additional methods incorporated by reference for 40 CFR
part 65, subparts I, J and M; (3) 40 CFR 65.295 will include additional
definitions of terms used in 40 CFR part 65, subparts I, J and M. The
12 new sections address the following consolidated general provisions
applicable to all Uniform Standards: (1) General requirements for
complying with the standards, operation and maintenance requirements,
recordkeeping and reporting; (2) how to
[[Page 17965]]
request a waiver for testing, recordkeeping and reporting or an
alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, test method or means of emission
limitation; and (3) authorities not delegated to the states.
For those 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 general provisions that would
apply to the Uniform Standards and that would not be consolidated into
subpart H, you are referred to Table 1 of subpart H, which lists the
sections or paragraphs of the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63 general
provisions that still apply to the Uniform Standards. In general, Table
1 lists general provisions that are associated with applicability,
initial notifications and permit application requirements, and
requirements that are not the typical compliance provisions that a
source must meet. Examples of the types of 40 CFR part 60, 61 and 63
general provisions listed in Table 1 include: 40 CFR 60.2, 61.02 and
63.2 (definitions); 40 CFR 60.3, 61.03 and 63.3 (abbreviations); 40 CFR
60.12, 61.05, 61.19 and 63.4 (prohibited activities, circumvention and
fragmentation); and 40 CFR 60.5, 61.06 and 63.5 (determination of
construction or modification; preconstruction review and notification
requirements). Regulated sources subject to 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63
would remain subject to the provisions in Table 1, as applicable.
B. Rationale
1. What is the purpose of this subpart?
40 CFR 65.200 is proposed to be changed from the previously
proposed 40 CFR 65.200 to specify that you would be required to comply
with the General Provisions, as specified in 40 CFR 65.210 (refers to
Table 1), as well as the referencing subpart.
2. Am I subject to the requirements of this subpart?
40 CFR 65.205 is proposed to be added to subpart H to make it clear
who would be required to comply with the general provisions in subpart
H. Subpart H applies to owners and operators who are subject to a
referencing subpart and have been expressly directed to comply with the
Uniform Standards by a referencing subpart. This section is needed so
that you will understand the applicability.
3. When must I comply with this subpart?
40 CFR 65.206 was added as part of efforts to make consistent the
organization of the Uniform Standards. The question of when to comply
is addressed in only subpart H.
4. Am I subject to the General Provisions for part 60, 61 or 63 of this
part?
We are proposing to add 40 CFR 65.210 to subpart H to specify that
only some 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 general provisions will apply to
you. As discussed in section VI.A of this preamble, we reviewed the 40
CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions and concluded that the best
approach to providing general provisions for the 40 CFR part 65 Uniform
Standards is to consolidate some of the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63
general provisions, and to include these consolidated general
provisions in 40 CFR part 65, subparts H and M. Consolidating these
provisions will allow us to streamline these general requirements for
the Uniform Standards, increasing the clarity of the General Provisions
and facilitating the compliance process for all parties. Consolidation
will also reduce administrative burden by facilitating our process of
amending the referencing subparts in the future.
To consolidate the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 general provisions,
we reviewed each general provision in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. For
each provision, we determined if the general provision should be: (1)
Consolidated into one general provision in subpart H that applies to
sources complying with any Uniform Standard (you would not comply with
the original, unconsolidated part 60, 61 or 63 requirement); (2)
consolidated into one general provision in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M
that applies to sources complying with 40 CFR Part 65, subpart M (you
would not comply with the original, unconsolidated part 60, 61 or 63
requirement); (3) referred to in Table 1 to subpart H and required, as
specified in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63; or (4) excluded from the
Uniform Standards because the provision does not apply to the types of
sources that will be regulated using the Uniform Standards (e.g.,
opacity and visible emissions provisions).
5. What are my general requirements for complying with operation and
maintenance requirements?
Under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, and as specified in
subpart A of both parts, compliance is demonstrated with an emission
limit using the results of a performance test; however, under 40 CFR
part 63, the General Provisions specify that the Administrator will
determine compliance based on performance tests, monitoring data,
records, operation and maintenance procedures, and conformance to the
procedures. In order to remove undue burden for individual source
categories and provide consistent requirements for sources complying
with the Uniform Standards, we have consolidated the general operation
and maintenance compliance provisions of 40 CFR part 63 in proposed 40
CFR 65.215. These proposed provisions were developed, based on 40 CFR
63.6(e), (f) and (g). The proposed provisions are different from 40 CFR
63.6(e), (f) and (g) in that they include changes in terminology and
cross-references, as well as removal of SSM provisions. The
consolidated provisions in 40 CFR 65, subparts H and M would apply to
all sources subject to referencing subparts.
We have not included provisions for SSM in these Uniform Standards,
based on a recent District of Columbia Circuit ruling. The United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir., 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735
(U.S., 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemptions
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of
a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,''
that the EPA promulgated under CAA section 112. When incorporated into
CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these
two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during
periods of SSM.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the Uniform Standards, as
proposed, are designed to provide for continuous compliance with the
emission standards of a referencing subpart. Future rulemakings that
may reference the Uniform Standards will include a determination on the
need for separate standards for startup and shutdown for the specific
source category. Rationale for those provisions will be supplied at the
time of proposal, thus, providing an opportunity for public comment.
The final rulemakings for such referencing subparts would determine
whether separate standards for startup and shutdown would apply in lieu
of the otherwise continuously applicable referenced Uniform Standards.
6. What are my general recordkeeping requirements?
We are proposing to add 40 CFR 65.220 to require that you maintain
records for a period of 5 years, as required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A.
[[Page 17966]]
These records would be required to be maintained in such a manner that
they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection within 2-
hours time. This proposed record retention policy does not specify
onsite or offsite retention periods because we assume that sources
primarily use electronic archival systems that can be easily accessed
from on site, whether the archive exists on or off site. This will
provide more flexibility for sources regulated under 40 CFR part 63
while maintaining enforceability of the rule. This would allow the use
of hard copy or electronic storage technologies that enable offsite
data to be quickly retrieved by the site for independent review. For
sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, this
proposed recordkeeping provision could represent a longer total record
retention period of 5 years rather than 2 years, but would allow
shorter onsite record retention. For many sources regulated under 40
CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, this proposed record retention
requirement represents a burden reduction compared to the title V
program, which requires onsite record retention for 5 years.
7. What are my general reporting requirements?
We propose adding 40 CFR 65.225 to subpart H to consolidate and
make consistent the reporting provisions in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63.
We considered the level of reporting that would be required for sources
regulated under the Uniform Standards according to the periodic
reporting requirements of the existing rules and the title V program.
Many sources are subject to numerous periodic reports under various 40
CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 subparts, as well as under the title V program.
Petroleum refineries, for example, are required to prepare periodic
reports under multiple regulations. For example, petroleum refineries
can be subject to regulations, such as subparts G, R, CC, UU and UUU of
40 CFR part 63, subparts Kb, R, VV, XX, GGG and QQQ of 40 CFR part 60
and subparts V, Y, BB and FF of 40 CFR part 61, in addition to title V
reporting requirements. All of these regulations have requirements for
periodic reporting, most commonly, semiannual reporting. The NESHAP for
petroleum refineries, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, includes provisions
for emission units that are subject to more than one regulation and the
rule provides direction regarding which rule the source should follow
to address the overlapping requirements. However, this guidance only
applies when more than one rule applies to a given emission unit; the
guidance does not address situations when several rules apply to the
source, but there is no overlap of requirements for a given emission
unit. For example, there is no guidance provided for situations, such
as a source with a storage tank subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y,
another tank subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb and third tank
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. For this example, the source is
required to know the details of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for all three rules and submit periodic reports according
to the requirements of each rule.
As discussed in section II.D of this preamble, having the Uniform
Standards with different subparts referencing its use provides for a
significant burden reduction due to the consolidation of requirements.
Although the report content would be the same for a given emission
point type, the reporting schedule is dictated by the referencing
subpart; therefore, a source subject to the Uniform Standard under
multiple referencing subparts applicable to different emission points
could still be subject to multiple periodic reports on different
reporting schedules. However, we have included in proposed subpart H,
provisions modeled from the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, allowing
adjustments to reporting schedules to arrange the reports on a
consistent schedule, including 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71
operating permit semiannual reports.
Types of reports. To consolidate and make consistent the reporting
requirements under the Uniform Standards, proposed 40 CFR 65.225 groups
notifications and reports into four categories: (1) Notification of
Compliance Status, (2) semiannual periodic reports, (3) annual periodic
reports and (4) other notifications and reports. Consolidating the
reporting requirements as described in this section will make it easier
for you to comply with the rule and for the EPA to enforce and review
these provisions in the future.
In an effort to streamline the reporting requirements and reduce
burden, we are proposing semiannual and annual periodic reports, based
on whether the reporting elements are deviations or non-deviations. We
considered whether it would be appropriate to eliminate periodic
reports under the Uniform Standards because sources are required to
document all deviations in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 operating
permit semiannual reports, which must also be documented in reports for
the underlying rules. However, some reporting elements in the periodic
reports required under existing rules are not reporting deviations. For
example, periodic reports include, as applicable, reports on LDAR
monitoring (such as number of equipment tested and number of leaking
equipment found), new operating scenarios developed for batch
operations and the associated parameter monitoring and reports on
process changes. In order to address the differences between non-
deviation reporting elements and to assure the appropriate level of
detail for deviations, we have segregated the reporting elements into
deviation and non-deviations. For non-deviation reporting elements, we
are proposing that they be submitted annually in hardcopy. We have
determined that annual reporting of non-deviation elements is
sufficient to ensure compliance under the Uniform Standards, and
anticipate that requiring these reporting elements annually, as opposed
to semiannually, will create a burden reduction for industry (see
section VII.D of this preamble).
Although we have maintained semiannual reporting for the deviation
reporting elements in the Uniform Standards, we are proposing that they
be electronically entered in the CEDRI (rather than submitted by other
means). The electronic reporting system will allow owners and operators
to create copies of any deviation reports they would need to submit in
a 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 operating permit semiannual report
to the permit authority. This would provide an additional burden
reduction for industry, as discussed in section VII.D of this preamble.
We are proposing that the Notification of Compliance Status Reports
for 40 CFR part 65, subparts I and J be submitted electronically; the
Notification of Compliance Status Reports for 40 CFR part 65, subpart M
would be submitted in hard copy. We are not requiring electronic
submittal of the Notification of Compliance Status Report for subpart M
because it contains reporting elements that contain a high level of
detail and description. As discussed in section II.F of this preamble,
we have determined that these reporting elements would not be easily
incorporated into the electronic reporting system at this time.
The category of ``other'' notifications and reports was created to
group together reports that are not part of the Notification of
Compliance Status or periodic compliance reports. This group includes
notifications and reports: (1) Submitted initially prior to the initial
compliance demonstration; (2) that must be submitted only if you
request to use alternative methods or procedures from
[[Page 17967]]
those specified in the proposed rule (e.g., request to use alternative
test method); and (3) that are needed to be submitted for certain
situations (e.g., notification of performance test; changes in
continuous monitoring system (CMS), processes or controls; new
operating scenarios for batch operations). Except for performance test
and CEMS performance evaluation reports, ``other'' reports would be
submitted in hard copy.
We have included provisions that would require you to report any
changes in CMS, processes or controls, or new operating scenarios for
batch operations that differ from what has been previously reported
(either in the Notification of Compliance Status or a subsequent
report) within 30 days of making the change. We must be notified of
these changes because they could be germane to the determination of a
deviation, such as a deviation of an operating parameter under a new
operating scenario, which was employed following the last report. In
this instance, the agency would need to know the parameters against
which to evaluate the deviation, as established under the updated
operating scenario.
Schedule. Proposed 40 CFR 65.225 also establishes a schedule for
submitting the initial Notification of Compliance Status and semiannual
and annual periodic reports. The Notification of Compliance Status for
each regulated source would be required to be reported within 240 days
after the applicable compliance date specified in the referencing
subparts, or within 60 days after the completion of the initial
performance test or initial compliance determination, whichever is
earlier. We are requiring an annual periodic report containing non-
deviation reporting elements. Reporting of deviations required by the
Uniform Standards would be reported electronically with the semiannual
periodic report.
Report nomenclature. Currently, the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63
General Provisions refer to the same report using different
nomenclature, and these differences would hamper our efforts to
specify, in 40 CFR part 65, subparts I through M, requirements related
to this report. For example, the initial compliance report is referred
to in the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions as a ``summary
report'' (40 CFR 60.7(d)), ``compliance status information'' (40 CFR
part 61, appendix A) and a ``Notification of Compliance Status'' (40
CFR 63.9(h)), respectively. In proposed 40 CFR 65.225, this initial
report is renamed for all sources complying with the Uniform Standards,
and is referred to as the ``Notification of Compliance Status.'' Using
one name for this report for sources regulated under all three parts of
title 40 will facilitate efforts to specify requirements related to
this report in the proposed Uniform Standards in 40 CFR part 65,
subparts I through M.
This same approach to standardizing report names has been applied
to periodic compliance reports and certain other reports. The proposed
Uniform Standards refer to the periodic compliance report as the
``annual periodic report'' or ``semiannual periodic report,'' which
standardizes the name for the ``excess emission and continuous
monitoring system performance report'' and ``summary report'' in 40 CFR
part 63, the ``excess emissions and monitoring systems performance
report'' and ``summary report form'' in 40 CFR part 60 and the
``compliance status information'' form in 40 CFR part 61, appendix A.
Likewise, we propose making consistent, where appropriate, the
content of these similar reports in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 for the
semiannual and annual periodic reports and other notifications and
reports under the Uniform Standards. For example, the 40 CFR parts 60,
61 and 63 general provisions for periodic compliance reporting include
reporting provisions that are similar in intent, but slightly different
in content, and this discrepancy between the General Provisions
complicates our efforts to specify reporting requirements in 40 CFR
part 65, subparts I, J and M. The proposed ``semiannual periodic
report'' and ``annual periodic report'' incorporate elements of the
``excess emission and continuous monitoring system performance report''
and ``summary report'' in 40 CFR part 63, the ``excess emissions and
monitoring systems performance report'' and ``summary report form'' in
40 CFR part 60 and the ``compliance status information'' form in 40 CFR
part 61, appendix A. We are also updating the contents of the
semiannual and annual periodic reports by adding provisions for closed
vent systems, batch operations and process changes. Refer to section
V.B of this preamble for further discussion on this topic.
Other report consolidation. We are proposing to consolidate certain
40 CFR part 60, 61 and 63 general provisions that specify the technical
contents of reports (e.g., submittal of test plan and performance
evaluation test plan), and we have determined that these provisions
would best be aggregated with the monitoring, performance testing and/
or reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 65, subpart M, instead of in
subpart H. It will be easier for sources to locate and understand these
requirements if they are included in subpart M with related testing and
monitoring requirements. Combining similar requirements together would
benefit both the public and private sector by simplifying compliance
and enforcement. Refer to section V.B of this preamble for further
discussion of this topic.
We have consolidated the reporting requirement to submit a request
for alternative monitoring. The general provisions for 40 CFR parts 60,
61 and 63 all allow alternative monitoring, but 40 CFR part 60 and 40
CFR part 61 do not provide a procedure for submitting such a request.
We proposed to apply the procedure specified in the 40 CFR part 63
General Provisions to all sources subject to the Uniform Standards.
This proposed revision is discussed further in section VI.B.7 of this
preamble. Consolidating these provisions in subpart H would provide a
consistent method for requesting monitoring alternatives for all
referencing subparts, adding flexibility and simplifying compliance for
sources regulated under the Uniform Standards.
Where we have determined that certain reporting requirements in the
40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions do not apply to the
Uniform Standards, we have excluded these provisions from 40 CFR part
65, subparts H through M. For example, the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63
general provisions applicable to opacity and visible emissions are not
included in proposed 40 CFR 65.225 because the Uniform Standards do not
address opacity and visible emissions standards. We have also not
included provisions from 40 CFR part 63 related to the SSM plan and
associated recordkeeping and reporting, based on the Court decision
that emissions limitations under CAA section 112 must apply at all
times, even during periods of SSM (see section VI.B.5 of this
preamble). Although the SSM plan and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements were not specifically vacated by the Court, they no longer
serve the original purpose of making sure the source follows good
pollution control measures during periods of SSM in return for not
being in violation.
We have removed provisions that required recordkeeping and
reporting for actions taken during periods when a deviation occurs.
These measures, which were previously included in periodic reports
existing under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63, required that sources
document and report the corrective actions taken when a
[[Page 17968]]
deviation occurs, the measures adopted to correct the deviation, the
nature of the repairs or adjustments to the CMS and a description of
the cause of the deviation. Additionally, these provisions required
more detailed reporting, such as the identification of the cause (e.g.,
the monitoring equipment malfunction process upset, control device
upset, etc.) of each period of excess emissions and parameter
monitoring exceedances. The reporting elements required by these
provisions are elements that were previously established as part of SSM
requirements. Although we are not requiring recording or reporting of
these elements as part of the semiannual periodic report, sources may
wish to collect and maintain this information for EPA and corporate
review in the case of an exceedance of an emission standard. Further
requirements for periods of deviation will be addressed by the
referencing subpart in the manner appropriate for each source category;
these requirements will be established during the development of the
referencing subpart.
Reporting impacts. The consolidation of reporting requirements, as
discussed in this section, will create a simplified, consistent method
for reporting that may be applied to multiple source categories. We
anticipate that these revised requirements will improve understanding,
facilitate compliance and reduce the burden associated with reporting
for multiple regulations. We have estimated that reducing the reporting
frequency for some reporting elements to annual; allowing semiannual
periodic reports to be submitted on a consistent schedule; and
converting to electronic reporting for certain reporting elements would
provide a reporting burden reduction of 42 to 59 percent to typical
chemical plants and refineries (see sections VI.B.6 and VII.D of this
preamble for more information).
8. How do I request a waiver for recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?
We are proposing that 40 CFR 65.235 be added to subpart H to
provide a procedure for sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40
CFR part 61 (as well as 40 CFR part 63) to apply for and obtain
approval for a recordkeeping or reporting waiver request. This proposed
procedure for requesting a waiver is currently provided in the General
Provisions for 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, but is not provided in the
General Provisions for 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR part 61. 40 CFR 61.11
does provide provisions for a waiver of compliance, but does not
specifically address a waiver of recordkeeping and reporting. We
propose that sources regulated under 40 CFR part 61 submit the proposed
application for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting with the
application requesting a waiver of compliance under 40 CFR 61.11.
Applying this 40 CFR part 63, subpart A procedure to all sources
referred to the Uniform Standards would add flexibility and simplify
compliance and enforcement for sources regulated under the Uniform
Standards.
9. How do I request alternative monitoring methods?
We propose that 40 CFR 65.240 be added to subpart H to provide a
procedure for requesting alternative monitoring methods, including
major, minor and intermediate changes to monitoring methods. The
allowance to request alternative monitoring is currently provided in
the 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 General Provisions, but the 40 CFR part
60 and 40 CFR part 61 General Provisions (i.e., see 40 CFR
60.13(h)(3)(i) and 61.14(g)(1)) do not provide a procedure for
application and approval of such requests. Applying the 40 CFR part 63
general provisions procedure (see 40 CFR 63.8(f)(4)(ii)), with minor
clarifying revisions to all sources referred to the Uniform Standards
would provide a consistent method for requesting monitoring
modifications and alternatives for all referencing subparts, adding
flexibility and simplifying compliance for sources regulated under the
Uniform Standards.
10. How do I request a waiver for performance testing requirements?
40 CFR 65.245 is proposed to be added to subpart H to provide a
procedure for requesting a performance test waiver. This procedure is
currently provided in the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, but is not
provided in the 40 CFR part 60 General Provisions. The 40 CFR part 61
General Provisions (i.e., 40 CFR 60.8(b)) do allow a waiver for
performance tests, but do not provide a procedure for application and
approval.
Applying this 40 CFR part 63 general provisions procedure to all
sources referred to the Uniform Standards would update these provisions
for sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 and
benefit both the public and industry by simplifying compliance for and
enforcement of sources regulated under the Uniform Standards.
11. How do I request to use an alternative test method?
We propose that 40 CFR 65.250 be added to subpart H to provide a
procedure for requesting a different test method than specified in the
Uniform Standards, including standard methods not specified,
alternative test methods or changes to test methods. The allowance to
request alternative test methods is provided in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and
63, subpart A, but 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, subpart A do not
provide a procedure for application and approval of such requests.
Applying this 40 CFR part 63, subpart A procedure to all sources
referred to the Uniform Standards would provide sources regulated under
40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61 with more detailed instructions,
simplifying compliance and enforcement of sources regulated under the
Uniform Standards.
12. What are the procedures for approval of alternative means of
emission limitation?
40 CFR 65.260 is proposed to be added to subpart H to specify a
procedure for requesting an alternative means of emission limitation.
The 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions currently
include such provisions. The 40 CFR part 60 General Provisions do not
include such provisions; however, such provisions are included in the
underlying rules of 40 CFR part 60. We are proposing to consolidate the
provisions for 40 CFR part 61 and 40 CFR part 63 into proposed subpart
H for sources directed to the Uniform Standards and regulated under 40
CFR parts 60, 61 and 63. The consolidated language in proposed subpart
H contains the same provisions as the other general provisions
requiring the source to submit a request containing information showing
that the alternative means of emission limitations achieves equivalent
emission reductions to the method specified in the Uniform Standards.
13. How do you determine what regulated sources are in regulated
material service?
The previously proposed 40 CFR 65.275 describes procedures for
determining whether a source is ``in regulated material service,'' in
the event that a referencing subpart does not provide an explanation of
how to determine whether a source is ``in regulated material service.''
These previously proposed requirements are based on the procedures in
40 CFR 63.180(d), which require that you determine the percent organic
HAP
[[Page 17969]]
content using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6. We are
considering, but not proposing, applying the same concepts we used in
selecting the test methods allowable for performance test methods for
determining whether the source is ``in regulated materials service.''
As discussed in section V.B.6 of this preamble, we are not allowing EPA
Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 and EPA Method 320 as performance test methods
for total regulated material because these methods only work for
determining the quantity of known pollutants; therefore, you could fail
to identify the ``total'' regulated material. We are requesting comment
on whether it is reasonable to consider allowing Method 320 at 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A in lieu of EPA Method 18 for determining whether
your regulated source is in regulated materials service when the
specific organic regulated material is known, and not allowing EPA
Method 18 or EPA Method 320 when there are unknown HAP present.
Instead, we would specify that Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-7 should be used to determine if the source is ``in regulated
materials service.'' This proposed 40 CFR 65.275 is identical to the
previously proposed 40 CFR 65.275.
14. What authorities are not delegated to the states?
We delegate implementation and enforcement authority to a state
under sections 111(c) and 112(l) of the CAA. For the Uniform Standards,
the delegation of these authorities would be through the referencing
subparts because the proposed Uniform Standards are a set of
foundational requirements that may be used to demonstrate compliance
with the emissions standards specified in the referencing subpart.
However, because there are certain requirements that the EPA does not
delegate to the states, and some of those requirements are located in
the Uniform Standards, it is important to specify their location in the
Uniform Standards. 40 CFR 65.275 is proposed to be added to subpart H
to specify which authorities located in the Uniform Standards would be
retained by the EPA and not delegated to a state. The proposed Uniform
Standards in subpart H specify that the EPA retain authority to review
and approve the following: alternative means of emission limitation;
recordkeeping and reporting waivers; major changes to monitoring
requirements; major changes to test methods; and using standard EPA
test methods other than those listed in the Uniform Standards. This
proposed list of authorities is consistent with the list of retained
authorities specified 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63.
15. How do I determine compliance with periodic requirements?
The proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Heat
Exchangers (40 CFR part 65, subpart L), signed by the EPA Administrator
on November 30, 2011 (77 FR 960, January 6, 2012), included guidance on
the timing of periodic requirements, including a minimum amount of time
that must pass between consecutive instances, or ``reasonable
intervals.'' We provided reasonable intervals for weekly, monthly,
quarterly, semiannual and annual requirements in proposed 40 CFR part
65, subpart L, and those intervals have not changed. In the process of
developing the Uniform Standards, we have added periodic requirements
using additional time frames. Therefore, we are proposing to add
additional reasonable intervals for requirements that occur bimonthly,
three times per year and biennially (i.e., every 2 calendar years). We
are proposing that the reasonable interval for bimonthly requirements
would be 20 days, which is roughly halfway between the reasonable
intervals for monthly and quarterly requirements. Requirements that
must be completed ``three times per year'' are less defined in terms of
a calendar period, but if the three events were evenly spaced
throughout a year, they would occur about 120 days apart. We are
proposing that the reasonable interval for ``three times per year''
would be 40 days, which is consistent with the reasonable intervals of
about one-third of the calendar period that we proposed previously for
requirements that occur quarterly or less frequently. Finally, we are
proposing that for provisions that you are required to complete
biennially, you would repeat those events every other calendar year.
(For example, if you are required to monitor valves subject to 40 CFR
part 65, subpart J biennially, and you complete the first monitoring
event in January of 2014, you would be required to complete the next
monitoring event on or after January 1, 2016, and on or before December
31, 2016.) This provision has the effect of requiring you to schedule
each event between about 1 to 3 calendar years after the previous
event. We request comment on these reasonable intervals.
16. What definitions apply to this subpart?
We are proposing definitions in subpart H for certain types of
units that appear in multiple Uniform Standards, so that those terms
are defined consistently. Some definitions modeled from subpart SS, UU
and WW of part 63 have been revised in the proposed subpart H for
clarification or applicability purposes. Refer to sections III through
V of this preamble for discussions about issues related to the proposed
definitions.
VII. Impacts of the Proposed Rule
The Uniform Standards provide only operational, compliance
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would not
apply to any specific source category unless and until made applicable
in a subsequent rulemaking for that source category referencing the
Uniform Standards; therefore, it is most appropriate to present
nationwide impacts for a referencing subpart during proposal or
promulgation of that subpart when the emission standards are
established for a given source category and when the decision of
whether to refer to the Uniform Standards (and with what modifications)
is made. The referencing subpart will provide the specific
applicability of the Uniform Standards and an estimate of the number of
sources and emission units for the given source category. Using the
estimated numbers of regulated units, the nationwide impacts can be
clearly calculated and presented.
In order to provide sufficient information on the proposed Uniform
Standards for comment review, we are presenting costs on a unit basis
for the proposed monitoring requirements that have not been included in
previous rules. Many of the requirements in the Uniform Standards are
the same or are similar to previous rules and do not represent changes
that will translate into a cost increase from current rules applicable
to the chemical industry. Although the Uniform Standards are intended
to reduce the overall burden for facilities, some of the proposed
changes could cause an increase in costs. This section provides a
discussion of these costs and any cost increases that could be
associated with the compliance requirements of the Uniform Standards
when they are applied through a referencing subpart.
A. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in
40 CFR part 65, subpart I?
Generally, costs will be the same or lower for the 40 CFR part 65,
subpart I standards. The proposed requirement to control emissions from
degassing certain storage vessels will increase costs, as described in
section III of this preamble. The proposed requirement to install
monitoring devices and alarms to
[[Page 17970]]
alert operators of impending floating roof landing and overfill will
add costs for facilities that do not already have such devices. The EPA
Method 21/optical gas imaging instrument monitoring of fixed roofs will
be more costly than visual inspections.
B. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in
40 CFR part 65, subpart J?
There are two new provisions in the Uniform Standards for Equipment
Leaks that are expected to increase costs compared to current rules. As
described in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, the first of these is
annual instrument monitoring for open-ended valves and lines to ensure
compliance with the requirement that the cap, blind flange, plug or a
second valve properly seals the open-ended valve or line. The costs for
the model plants ranged from a capital cost of $810 and an annualized
cost of $180 for the simple chemical manufacturing model to a capital
cost of $23,000 and an annualized cost of $5,400 for the complex
refinery model.
The other provision that is expected to increase costs compared to
current rules is the requirement to install electronic indicators on
each PRD that would be able to identify and record the time and
duration of each pressure release. These costs range from a capital
cost of $11,000 and an annualized capital cost of $1,600 for the simple
chemical manufacturing model to a capital cost of $130,000 and an
annualized capital cost of $19,000 for the complex refinery model.
Additional details on the calculation of these costs are provided in
the technical memorandum entitled Analysis of Emission Reduction
Techniques for Equipment Leaks, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.
C. What are the cost increases associated with requirements proposed in
40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
We are providing a summary of the cost impacts of the proposed 40
CFR part 65, subpart M monitoring requirements in which the expected
impacts will change from the typical monitoring requirements in past
rules, including adsorbers, biofilters, bypasses and reporting
requirements. We do not anticipate other cost impacts that would differ
from those established in current regulations. We provide a summary of
the costs for the proposed monitoring and reporting requirements in
sections VII.C.1 through VII.C.3 of this preamble. Additional
information regarding monitoring costs for closed vent system and
control devices, including small boilers and process heaters,
oxidizers, absorbers, adsorbers, condensers, biofilters, sorbent
injection and fabric filters can be located in the technical
memorandum, Development of Monitoring Cost Estimates for the Proposed
Part 65 Uniform Standards for Control Devices--Subpart M, in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.
1. What are the cost increases associated with adsorber requirements
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
The proposed monitoring for adsorbers, both regenerative and non-
regenerative, includes some requirements that are new to the typical
chemical sector regulation. Table 16 of this preamble provides a list
of the proposed monitoring provisions for adsorbers that have not been
typically included in previous chemical sector regulations.
Table 16--Capital and Annualized Costs for Proposed Adsorber Monitoring Requirements in 40 CFR Part 65, Subpart
M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Control Monitoring capital annualized
costs ($) costs ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regenerative Adsorbers........................ Frequency monitor..................... ........... 5,950
Verification monitoring............... ........... 5,950
Weekly checks on outlet concentration. 9,200 3,700
Corrective action plan................ ........... 3,400
Non-regenerative Adsorbers.................... Checks on outlet concentration (costs 9,200 3,700
assume an average of weekly
monitoring).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated previously in section V.B.3 of this preamble, these
monitoring requirements are important to assess whether the adsorbers
are operating properly. It is difficult to estimate emissions
reductions that can be attributed to these additional costs. Other than
the weekly outlet concentration tests, the additional monitoring checks
are designed to check for a situation that can occur, but may not for a
given adsorber. If, for example, the valve sequencing of a regenerative
adsorber is sluggish and the timing is not correct, the emissions
reduced by the adsorber could degrade significantly. The weekly checks
on the outlet concentration and associated corrective action plan for
regenerative adsorbers ensure that degradation of the adsorbent,
fouling or channeling is detected in a timely manner. A period of time
with inadequate adsorbent would significantly reduce the emissions
reductions of the adsorber. Although the degradation of the adsorbent
is an anticipated event, the adsorbent life can vary with actual use;
therefore, a schedule to check the outlet concentration is important to
make sure that the adsorber does not operate with degraded adsorbent
and can control emissions to meet the requirements of the referencing
subpart.
Few past rules have included provisions for adsorbers regenerated
offsite; therefore, any monitoring for non-regenerative adsorbers is
additional monitoring or new for chemical sector rules. The proposed
monitoring for this type of control, outlet concentration measurement,
is low cost, especially considering that this is the only monitoring
that is necessary for this control.
2. What are the cost increases associated with biofilter requirements
proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
Although the MON requires monitoring the temperature of the
biofilter bed, we are proposing additional monitoring for moisture and
pressure drop. The estimated additional costs for monitoring these
parameters are included in Table 17 of this preamble.
[[Page 17971]]
Table 17--Capital and Annualized Costs for Proposed Biofilter Monitoring Requirements in Subpart M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Control Monitoring capital annualized
costs ($) costs ($)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biofilters.................................... Moisture content...................... 5,400 7,100
Pressure drop......................... 6,400 7,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the MON only allows the biofilter as a control option for
batch operations, we are proposing to allow the control option for
emissions from either a batch or continuous operation. To meet the
additional emissions reductions usually associated with continuous
operations, we have added monitoring for moisture and pressure drop to
ensure good performance of the biofilter. The costs for the additional
monitoring are reasonable given the added assurance of good performance
achieved by including this monitoring.
3. What are the cost increases associated with bypass monitoring
requirements proposed in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M?
Bypass monitoring has been a requirement of closed vent system
provisions in many past regulations. However, PRD needed for safety
purposes, low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents and open-
ended valves or lines were previously not subject to the bypass line
requirements to have a flow monitor or a car seal on each bypass line
that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. Given the recent
Sierra Club v. EPA decision vacating the 40 CFR part 63 General
Provisions' exemption from emission standards during periods of SSM
(see section VI.B.5 of this preamble), these equipment would be subject
to this monitoring when directed to the Uniform Standards from a
referencing subpart. See the discussion under section VII.B of this
preamble.
D. What are the cost impacts associated with the proposed reporting
requirements for the Uniform Standards?
In our survey of existing regulations for the development of the
Uniform Standards, we determined that many petroleum refineries and
chemical plants are subject to numerous and duplicative recordkeeping
and reporting requirements under various 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63
subparts, as well as under the title V program. We have estimated a
total recordkeeping and reporting burden for a typical refinery subject
to current rules of about $106,000, with a burden of approximately
$52,800 for the required reporting. For an example chemical plant, we
have estimated a total recordkeeping and reporting burden of
approximately $66,900 for the current rules, with a burden of about
$16,000 for the current required reporting. In order to reduce burden
to industry, while retaining the reporting requirements needed to
monitor compliance, we are proposing annual periodic reporting for some
reporting elements and we are proposing to accept semiannual reporting
data elements electronically, as discussed in sections II.F and VI.B.7
of this preamble. We anticipate that the proposed reporting
requirements will reduce the burden of reporting for a typical refinery
by 59 percent. This would represent a burden reduction of about $31,400
for reporting burden, and a total burden reduction of 30 percent for a
typical refinery. For a typical chemical plant, we anticipate that the
proposed requirements will reduce the burden of reporting by 42
percent. This would represent a burden reduction of $6,780 per year for
reporting, and would represent a total burden reduction of 10 percent
for a typical chemical plant. However, there will be some burden for a
source to initially set up their facility in the electronic reporting
system. We estimated set up costs for the example refinery and chemical
plant as $5,300 and $2,700, respectively. See technical memorandum,
Comparison of Reporting Burden between Hardcopy Reports Submitted under
Existing Rules and Electronic Reports Submitted for Uniform Standards,
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868 for additional information. These
burden reductions are estimates based on two model sources; we will be
refining these estimates and developing estimates associated with all
electronic reporting users. These estimates will be presented in the
preamble for the electronic reporting rule proposal. For a discussion
of the electronic reporting, see section II.F of this preamble.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 15859, March 22, 2011) directs each
federal agency to ``periodically review its existing significant
regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the
regulatory objectives.'' Through this proposal, the EPA is responding
to Executive Order 13563 by presenting steps to increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of
facilities affected by this proposal electronically submit certain
specified compliance reports to the EPA. Electronic data reporting
informs a number of our programs and offers several advantages over
traditional paper reporting. First, electronic reporting provides the
agency easy and routine access to the data needed to review and
evaluate our regulations. This results in fewer future ICR, thereby
saving both industry and the agency time and resources. In addition,
electronic reporting of emissions data will allow the agency to develop
and update emissions factors on a timelier basis. Finally, electronic
reporting informs our compliance program and allows easier
identification of compliance issues.
Executive Order 13563 requires the EPA to evaluate current
regulatory decisions to help generate a more transparent review
process. We believe that, through this proposal, electronic reporting
and data collection will provide a more effective and less burdensome
approach to recordkeeping
[[Page 17972]]
and reporting and is consistent with Executive Order 13563. The EPA
prepared an additional analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. This analysis is contained in section VII
of this preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The proposed Uniform Standards
only provide thresholds, emissions reductions requirements, control
options, testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
that would become applicable to a particular source category only if,
and when, a future rulemaking for that source category references the
Uniform Standards. The information collection burden of the Uniform
Standards on a given source category cannot be determined until the
Uniform Standards are referenced in a future rulemaking. Upon proposal
of a rule that references the Uniform Standards, a determination of the
burden estimate and an assessment for costs, economic impacts and other
impacts, as appropriate, would be conducted.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as
defined by the Small Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not directly impose any requirements on any
entities, including small entities. There are no entities subject to
this proposed rule unless and until the Uniform Standards are
referenced in future rulemakings for particular source categories. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The Uniform Standards will not apply to any source category until
future rulemakings under 40 CFR part 60, 61 or 63 reference their use.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or
205 of UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Upon proposal of a
rule that references the Uniform Standards, consideration will be made
whether that rule exceeds $100 million or more for state, local and
tribal governments or presents a significant impact on small government
entities.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The Uniform Standards will not
apply to any source category until a future rulemaking under 40 CFR
part 60, 61 or 63 references their use; therefore, the proposed Uniform
Standards do not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or
local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule. Upon proposal of a rule that references the Uniform
Standards, consideration will be made whether that rule has federalism
implications. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and
local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The proposed Uniform Standards do not directly impose requirements on
owners and operators of specified sources or tribal governments, but
will be referred to in future rulemakings, as discussed in section II
of this preamble. If any industries that are owned or operated by
tribal governments may be referenced to the Uniform Standards by
another subpart in the future, the effect of this proposed rule on
communities of tribal governments would not be unique or
disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. The EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution
or use of energy. The proposed Uniform Standards provide testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements only and do not
specify applicability thresholds or emissions reduction performance
requirements
[[Page 17973]]
that would have significant adverse energy impacts. The energy impacts
of the proposed Uniform Standards would be determined when the
standards are referenced in a future rulemaking. Therefore, we conclude
that the proposed rule, when implemented, is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of
energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs
the EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of Management and
Budget, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards.
The EPA cites the following standards: Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25A, 26, 26A, 27, 29, 201A,
202, 301 and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the
NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these
EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A,
2D, 2F, 2G, 21, 22, 27, 201A or 202. The search and review results are
in the docket for this rule. The search identified six VCS as
acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the purpose of this
rule. The method, ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
(incorporated by reference-see proposed 40 CFR 65.265), is cited in
this rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas. This part of
ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Methods 3A and
3B for the manual procedures only, and not the instrumental procedures.
The VCS, ASTM D6420-99 (2010), Standard Test Method for Determination
of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-
Mass Spectrometry (incorporated by reference-see proposed 40 CFR
65.265), was designated an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18.
Likewise, the VCS, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) Method 2010 ``Amines, Aliphatic, is acceptable as an
alternative for EPA Method 18 only for trimethylamine (CAS 121-44-8) at
iron foundries.
The VCS, ASTM D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Source
Impinger Method, is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Methods 26 and
26A. The VCS, ASTM D6784-2, Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-
Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), is acceptable as an
alternative to EPA Method 29 for mercury only. The VCS, ASTM D6348-03
(2010), Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy, is acceptable as an
alternative to EPA Method 320, in accordance with the conditions
outlined in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations
(40 CFR 65 Subpart I), National Uniform Emission Standards for
Equipment Leaks (40 CFR 65 Subpart J), and National Uniform Emission
Standards for Control Devices (40 CFR Subpart M) (see Docket ID. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868).
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 23 other
VCS that were potentially applicable for the Uniform Standards in lieu
of EPA reference methods. The EPA determined that these 23 standards
identified for measuring emissions of the regulated pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in this proposed rule were
impractical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data
and other important technical and policy considerations. Therefore, the
EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The
reasons for the determinations for the 23 methods are in the docket for
this proposed rule. For the methods required or referenced by the
proposed rules, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications or
procedures, as specified in proposed 40 CFR part 65, subpart H.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine
whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from
this proposed rule. The proposed Uniform Standards only provide
thresholds, emissions reduction requirements and operational, testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and are not
applicable until referenced by a future rulemaking for a particular
source category. The impact of the proposed rule on minority and/or
low-income populations would be determined during proposal in future
rulemakings that reference the Uniform Standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 65
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 24, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 65--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Replace subpart H to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart H--National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions
What This Subpart Covers
65.200 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.205 Am I subject to this subpart?
65.206 When must I comply with this subpart?
General Requirements
65.210 Am I subject to the General Provisions for part 60, 61 or 63
of this part?
65.215 What are my general requirements for complying with operation
and maintenance requirements?
65.220 What are my general recordkeeping requirements?
[[Page 17974]]
65.225 What are my general reporting requirements?
65.235 How do I request a waiver for recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?
65.240 How do I request an alternative monitoring method?
65.245 How do I request a waiver for performance testing
requirements?
65.250 How do I request to use an alternative test method?
65.260 What are the procedures for approval of alternative means of
emission limitation?
65.265 What methods are incorporated by reference for the Uniform
Standards?
65.270 How do I determine what regulated sources are in regulated
material service?
Other Requirements and Information
65.275 What authorities are not delegated to the states?
65.280 How do I determine compliance with periodic requirements?
65.295 What definitions apply to the Uniform Standards?
Table to Subpart H of Part 65
Table 1 to Subpart H of Part 65--Applicable 40 CFR Parts 60, 61 and
63 General Provisions
Subpart H--National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 65.200 What is the purpose of this subpart?
The purpose of this subpart is to provide general provisions for
the Uniform Standards of this part. These general provisions apply to
you if a subpart of part 60, 61 or 63 of this chapter references the
use of this subpart. The general provisions applicable to the
referencing subpart (subpart A of part 60, 61 or 63) apply to this
subpart, as specified in Sec. 65.210. Section 65.295 contains
definitions of ``uniform standards'' and ``referencing subpart,'' as
well as other terms used in these Uniform Standards. The General
Provisions for the Consolidated Federal Air Rule (subpart A of this
part) do not apply to the Uniform Standards.
Sec. 65.205 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you are an owner or operator who
is subject to a referencing subpart and you have been expressly
directed to comply with the uniform standards by a referencing subpart.
Sec. 65.206 When must I comply with this subpart?
You must comply with this subpart by the date specified in the
referencing subpart that directed you to comply with this subpart.
General Requirements
Sec. 65.210 Am I subject to the General Provisions for part 60, 61 or
63 of this part?
You must comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A;
40 CFR part 61, subpart A; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as
applicable, that are specified in Table 1 to this subpart. Table 1 to
this subpart specifies the provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A; 40
CFR part 61, subpart A; and 40 CFR part 63, subpart A that continue to
apply to owners or operators of regulated sources expressly referenced
to the Uniform Standards. You must comply with the provisions in Table
1 to this subpart that correspond to the referencing part. All
provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A; 40 CFR part 61, subpart A; and
40 CFR part 63, subpart A that are not expressly referenced in Table 1
to this subpart do not apply, and the provisions of the Uniform
Standards apply instead, except that provisions that were required to
be met prior to implementation of the Uniform Standards still apply.
Sec. 65.215 What are my general requirements for complying with
operation and maintenance requirements?
(a) Operation and maintenance requirements. You are subject to the
operation and maintenance provisions specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) At all times, you must operate and maintain any regulated
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
(2) The emission standards and established parameter ranges of the
referencing subpart and of the Uniform Standards apply at all times,
except during periods of non-operation of the regulated source (or
specific portion thereof), as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section. However, if a period of non-operation of one
portion of a regulated source does not affect the ability of a
particular emission point to comply with the specific provisions to
which it is subject, then that emission point must comply with the
applicable provisions of the Uniform Standards during the period of
non-operation. For example, the degassing of a storage vessel would not
affect the ability of a process vent to meet the requirements of
subpart M of this part.
(i) For all Uniform Standards except subpart J of this part,
periods of non-operation of the regulated source (or specific portion
thereof) are those periods resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which the Uniform Standards apply.
(ii) For subpart J of this part, periods of non-operation of the
regulated source (or specific portion thereof) are those periods in
which the lines are drained and depressurized, resulting in cessation
of the emissions to which subpart J of this part applies.
(3) Operation and maintenance requirements are enforceable
independent of emissions limitations or other requirements in relevant
standards.
(b) Compliance determination procedures. The Administrator will
follow the compliance determination procedures specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Compliance with operating conditions. For emission points that
are required to perform continuous parameter monitoring, the
Administrator will determine compliance with the required operating
conditions for the monitored control devices by using operating
parameter monitoring data.
(2) Compliance with the requirement to maintain any regulated
source in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The Administrator will
determine compliance with the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section by evaluation of your use of acceptable operation and
maintenance procedures. This determination will be based on information
available to the Administrator that may include, but is not limited to,
monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, inspection of the
regulated source and alternatives approved as specified in Sec.
65.240.
(3) Compliance with emissions standards. Paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and
(ii) of this section govern the use of data, tests and requirements to
determine compliance with emissions standards.
(i) Performance test. The Administrator will determine compliance
with emission standards of the referencing subpart and the Uniform
Standards, based on the results of performance tests conducted
according to the procedures specified in subpart M of this part, as
applicable, unless otherwise specified in the Uniform Standards.
(ii) Operation and maintenance requirements. The Administrator will
determine compliance with emission standards of the Uniform Standards
by evaluation of your conformance with operation and maintenance
requirements, including the evaluation
[[Page 17975]]
of monitoring data, as specified in the Uniform Standards.
(4) Design, equipment, work practice or operational standards. The
Administrator will determine compliance with design, equipment, work
practice or operational standards by the procedures specified in
paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Review of records, inspection of the regulated source and other
procedures specified in the Uniform Standards.
(ii) Evaluation of your conformance with operation and maintenance
requirements, as specified in paragraph (a) of this section and in the
Uniform Standards.
(c) Finding of compliance. The Administrator will make a finding
concerning a regulated source's compliance with an emission standard,
design standard, work practice, operational standard or general duty
requirement to maintain any regulated source in a manner consistent
with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions, as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, upon
obtaining all the compliance information required by the relevant
standard (including the reports of performance test results, monitoring
results and other information, if applicable), and information
available to the Administrator, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
section.
Sec. 65.220 What are my general recordkeeping requirements?
(a) Maintaining notifications, records and reports. You must keep
copies of notifications, reports and records required by this part for
at least 5 years, except for records that reflect current operating
conditions. These records and reports must be kept for 5 years after
they no longer reflect current operating conditions. Examples of these
records and reports include the regenerative adsorber corrective action
plan required by Sec. 65.742(e) or storage vessel capacity required by
Sec. 65.380(a).
(b) Availability of records. You must maintain all applicable
records in such a manner that they can be readily accessed and are
suitable for inspection within 2 hours after a request. Records may be
maintained in hard copy or computer-readable form, including, but not
limited to, on paper, computer disk, CD/DVD or magnetic tape.
Sec. 65.225 What are my general reporting requirements?
(a) Required notifications and reports. You must submit the
notifications and reports specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of
this section, as applicable. The notifications and reports specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (g) through (j) of this section.
(1) A Notification of Compliance Status described in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(2) Semiannual periodic reports, as described in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(3) Annual periodic reports, as described in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(4) Other notifications and reports, as described in paragraph (f)
of this section.
(b) Responsible official. For Notification of Compliance Status
Reports, semi-annual reports, annual periodic reports, performance test
reports and continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) performance
evaluation data, you must include the name, title and signature of the
responsible official who is certifying the accuracy of the report and
attesting to whether the source has complied with the relevant
standard.
(c) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit your
Notification of Compliance Status, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (2) of this section. The Notification of Compliance Status for
subparts I and J of this part must be submitted electronically, as
specified in paragraph (h) of this section and the Notification of
Compliance Status for subpart M of this part must be submitted, as
specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
(1) Contents. You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status
for each regulated source subject to the Uniform Standards, containing
the information specified in the applicable subparts of the Uniform
Standards.
(2) Due date. You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
for each regulated source within 240 days after the applicable
compliance date specified in the referencing subpart, or within 60 days
after the completion of the initial performance test, whichever is
earlier.
(d) Semiannual periodic reports. You must submit your periodic
reports, as specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
Semiannual reports must be submitted electronically as specified in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(1) Contents. Semiannual periodic reports must include information
of all deviations. A deviation includes any failure to meet a
requirement or obligation under the Uniform Standards and those
reporting elements specified, to be submitted in the semiannual
periodic reports in the Uniform Standards.
(2) Due date. Semiannual periodic reports must be submitted
semiannually, no later than 60 calendar days after the end of each 6-
month period. The first report must be submitted, as specified in
either paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) The first report must be submitted no later than the last day
of the month that includes the date 8 months after the date the source
became subject to this part or 6 months after the date since the last
part 60, 61 or 63 periodic report was submitted for the applicable
requirement, whichever is earlier.
(ii) For sources complying with the Uniform Standards at initial
startup, the first report must cover the 6 months after the
Notification of Compliance Status is due. The first report must be
submitted no later than the last day of the month that includes the
date 8 months after the Notification of Compliance Status is due.
(e) Annual periodic report. You must submit your annual periodic
reports, as specified in paragraphs (e)(1), (2) and (i) of this
section.
(1) Contents. Annual periodic reports must include all information
specified for annual periodic reports in the Uniform Standards.
(2) Due date. Annual periodic reports must be submitted annually,
no later than 60 calendar days after the end of each 12-month period.
The first report must be submitted, as specified in either paragraph
(e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) The first report must be submitted no later than the last day
of the month that includes the date 14 months after the date the source
became subject to this part or 12 months after the date since the last
part 60, 61 or 63 periodic report was submitted for the applicable
requirement, whichever is earlier.
(ii) For sources complying with the Uniform Standards at initial
startup, the first report must cover the 12 months after the
Notification of Compliance Status is due. The first report must be
submitted no later than the last day of the month that includes the
date 14 months after the Notification of Compliance Status is due.
(f) Other notifications and reports. You must submit the reports
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3), and (i) of this section, as
applicable.
(1) Other reports required in this subpart. You must submit the
reports specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
[[Page 17976]]
(i) Any request for a waiver for recordkeeping or reporting
requirements, as specified in Sec. 65.235.
(ii) Any request for an alternative or change in monitoring or an
alternative recordkeeping method, as specified in Sec. 65.240.
(iii) Any request for a waiver for a performance testing
requirement, as specified in Sec. 65.245.
(iv) Any request to use a different method than one specified in
the Uniform Standards, as specified in Sec. 65.250.
(2) Other reports required in subpart I of this part. You must
submit the reports specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (ii) of
this section.
(i) Notification of inspection (Sec. 65.388(a)).
(ii) Requests for alternate devices (Sec. 65.388(b)).
(3) Other reports required in subpart M of this part. You must
submit the reports specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through (xi) of
this section.
(i) Notification of performance test (Sec. 65.884(a)).
(ii) Performance test reports (Sec. 65.884(b)) submitted, as
specified in paragraph (k) of this section.
(iii) Notification of CEMS performance evaluation (Sec.
65.884(c)).
(iv) CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan (Sec.
65.884(c)).
(v) CEMS performance evaluations (Sec. 65.884(d)) submitted, as
specified in paragraph (k) of this section.
(vi) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) monitoring plan
(Sec. 65.884(e)).
(vii) Application to substitute a prior performance test (Sec.
65.884(f)).
(viii) A batch precompliance report (Sec. 65.884(g)).
(ix) Request for approval of an alternative monitoring parameter or
use of a control device other than those listed in subpart M of this
part (Sec. 65.884(h)).
(x) Changes in continuous monitoring system, processes or controls
(Sec. 65.884(i)).
(xi) New operating scenarios for batch operations (Sec.
65.884(j)).
(g) General report content. All notifications and reports
submitted, pursuant to the Uniform Standards, including reports that
combine information from the Uniform Standards and a referencing
subpart, must include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name, address and telephone number (fax number may also
be provided).
(2) The name, address and telephone number of the person to whom
inquiries should be addressed, if different than the owner or operator.
(3) The address (physical location) of the reporting facility.
(4) Identification of each regulated source covered in the
submission.
(5) Identification of which referencing subpart is applicable to
each regulated source.
(6) Identification of which Uniform Standards are applicable to
that regulated source.
(7) Summaries and groupings of the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(4) through (6) of this section are permitted.
(8) The date of the report.
(h) Electronic report submittals. You must electronically submit
all semiannual periodic reports and the 40 CFR part 65, subpart I and
40 CFR part 65, subpart J portions of the Notification of Compliance
Status to the Administrator using the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on or before the applicable due date.
(i) Non-CEDRI submitted reports. You must submit notifications and
reports not required to be submitted electronically according to the
procedures in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Notifications and reports not required to be submitted
electronically under this part must be sent to the Administrator at the
appropriate EPA Regional Office, and to the delegated State authority;
except if you request permission to use an alternative means of
emission limitation, as provided for in Sec. 65.260, you must submit
the request to the Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (C404-04), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. The EPA Regional Office may waive
the requirement to receive a copy of any notification or report at its
discretion.
(2) If any State requires a notice that contains all the
information required in a notification or report listed in this part,
you may send the appropriate EPA Regional Office a copy of the
notification or report that you sent to the state to satisfy the
requirements of this part for that notification or report.
(3) Wherever this subpart specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals
may be sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (for example, by email,
fax or courier) upon mutual agreement with the Administrator.
Submittals must be sent on or before the specified date.
(4) If acceptable to both the Administrator and you, notifications
and reports may be submitted on electronic media.
(j) Adjustment to timing of submittals. Adjustment to timing of
submittals may be made according to the provisions specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Alignment with title V submission. You may submit semiannual
periodic reports required by this part, on the same schedule as the
title V periodic report for the facility. If you use this option, you
need not obtain prior approval, but must assure no reporting gaps from
the last semiannual periodic report for the relevant standards. You
must clearly identify the change in reporting schedule in the first
report after the change is made, filed under paragraph (d) of this
section. The requirements of paragraph (g) of this section are not
waived when implementing this change.
(2) Request for adjustment. You may arrange, by mutual agreement
(which may be a standing agreement) with the Administrator, a common
schedule on which reports required by this part must be submitted
throughout the year, as long as the reporting period is not extended.
If you wish to request a change in a time period or due date for a
particular requirement, you must request the adjustment as soon as
practical before the subject activity is required to take place. You
must include in the request the information you consider to be useful
to convince the Administrator that an adjustment is warranted. A
request for a change to the semiannual or annual periodic reporting
schedules need only be made once for every schedule change and not once
for every semiannual or annual report submitted. Until an adjustment of
a due date has been approved by the Administrator, you remain subject
to the requirements of the Uniform Standards. For periodic reports
submitted for each relevant standard, the allowance for a consolidated
schedule applies beginning 1 year after the regulated source's
compliance date for that standard.
(3) Approval of request for adjustment. If, in the Administrator's
judgment, your request for an adjustment to a particular due date is
warranted, the Administrator will approve the adjustment. The
Administrator will notify you of approval or disapproval of the request
for an adjustment within 15 calendar days of receiving sufficient
information to evaluate the request.
(4) Notification of delay. If the Administrator is unable to meet a
specified deadline, you will be notified of any significant delay and
informed of the amended schedule.
(k) Electronic submittal of performance test and CEMS performance
evaluation data. You must
[[Page 17977]]
submit performance test and CEMS performance evaluation data using
EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) according to the procedures in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by Uniform Standards, you must submit performance test
data electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the
ERT (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). Only data
collected using test methods compatible with ERT are subject to this
requirement, to be submitted electronically to EPA's CDX. If a non-
supported test method is used, you must submit the performance test
report within 60 days, as specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
(2) If you claim that some of the information being submitted for
performance tests is confidential business information (CBI), you must
omit such CBI data from the electronic submissions and submit a
complete ERT file, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disk or other commonly used electronic storage media
(including, but not limited to, flash drives) to EPA by the due date
specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section. The electronic media
must be clearly marked as CBI, with the company name, facility
location, contact name and phone number, and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/
CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703.
(3) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS
performance evaluation test required by Sec. 65.711(c), you must
submit the relative accuracy test audit data electronically into EPA's
CDX by using the ERT, as described in paragraph (k)(1) of this section.
(4) The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a
report in any form suitable for the specific information, (e.g., by
commonly used electronic media, such as spreadsheet, on CD or hard
copy). The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of
reports in paper format.
Sec. 65.235 How do I request a waiver for recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?
You may request a waiver from recordkeeping or reporting according
to the procedures in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The
Administrator will process the waiver according to the procedures in
paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section. You remain subject to the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Uniform Standards until
a waiver has been granted by the Administrator.
(a) Waiver application. You may apply for a waiver from
recordkeeping or reporting requirements if your regulated source is
achieving the relevant standard(s), or your source is operating under
an extension of compliance under Sec. 63.6(i) of this chapter, or a
waiver of compliance under Sec. 61.11 of this chapter, or you have
requested an extension or waiver of compliance and the Administrator is
still considering that request.
(b) Extension of compliance request. If an application for a waiver
of recordkeeping or reporting is made, the application must accompany
the request for an extension of compliance under Sec. 63.6(i) of this
chapter or the request for a waiver of compliance under Sec. 61.10(b)
of this chapter, any required compliance progress report or compliance
status report required in the source's title V permit application, or a
permit modification application or a periodic report required under
this part, whichever is applicable. The application must include
whatever information you consider useful to convince the Administrator
that a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting is warranted.
(c) Approval or denial of waiver. The Administrator will approve or
deny a request for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements
when performing one of the following actions:
(1) Approves or denies an extension of compliance under Sec.
63.6(i) of this chapter or a waiver of compliance under Sec. 61.10(b)
of this chapter.
(2) Makes a determination of compliance following the submission of
a required semiannual periodic report.
(3) Makes a determination of suitable progress toward compliance
following the submission of a compliance progress report, whichever is
applicable.
(d) Waiver conditions. A waiver of any recordkeeping or reporting
requirement granted under this section may be conditioned on other
recordkeeping or reporting requirements deemed necessary by the
Administrator.
(e) Waiver cancellation. Approval of any waiver granted under this
section does not abrogate the Administrator's authority under the Clean
Air Act or in any way prohibit the Administrator from later canceling
the waiver. The cancellation will be made only after notice is given to
you.
Sec. 65.240 How do I request an alternative monitoring method?
You may submit a request for approval to use alternatives (major,
intermediate or minor changes to monitoring methods) to the monitoring
provisions of the Uniform Standards, as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section.
(a) Contents. An application for alternative monitoring must
contain the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Information justifying your request for an alternative
monitoring method, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or
the impracticality of the regulated source using the required method.
(2) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring system
that addresses the four elements contained in the definition of
monitoring in Sec. 65.295.
(3) A CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan, as specified
in Sec. 65.711(c) or a CPMS monitoring plan, as specified in Sec.
65.712(c), as applicable.
(b) Request due date. You must submit the application for an
alternative monitoring method, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) You may submit the application at any time, provided that it is
submitted with enough time prior to the compliance date specified in
the referencing subpart to ensure a timely review by the Administrator
in order to conduct the alternative monitoring method after the
compliance date.
(2) If the alternative monitoring procedure will serve as the
performance test method that is to be used to demonstrate compliance
with a referencing subpart, the application must be submitted at least
60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin and must meet
the requirements for an alternative test method under Sec. 65.250.
(3) For a request to make a minor change to monitoring, you must
submit your request with your CEMS performance evaluation and
monitoring plan required in Sec. 65.711(c) or your CPMS monitoring
plan required in Sec. 65.712(c), as applicable. Approval of the plan
will constitute approval of the minor change.
(c) Approval or denial of request to use alternative monitoring.
The Administrator will notify you of approval or intention to deny
approval of the request to use an alternative monitoring method within
30 calendar days after receipt of the original request and within 30
calendar days after receipt of any supplementary information that is
submitted. Before disapproving any request to use an alternative
method, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the
Administrator's intention to disapprove
[[Page 17978]]
the request together with the information specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Notice of the information, and findings on which the intended
disapproval is based.
(2) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional information
to the Administrator before final action on the request. At the time
the Administrator notifies you of the intention to disapprove the
request, the Administrator will specify how much time you will have
after being notified of the intended disapproval to submit the
additional information.
(d) Use of an alternative monitoring method. Procedures applicable
to sources that have requested an alternative monitoring method are
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) You are subject to the monitoring requirements of the Uniform
Standards, unless permission to use an alternative monitoring method
has been granted by the Administrator. Once an alternative is approved,
you must use the alternative for the emission points or regulated
sources cited in the approval, and must meet the monitoring
requirements of the Uniform Standards for all other emission points or
regulated sources.
(2) If the Administrator approves the use of an alternative
monitoring method for a regulated source, you must continue to use the
alternative monitoring or method unless you receive approval from the
Administrator to use another method.
(3) If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the
results obtained by an alternative monitoring method, requirement or
procedure, the Administrator may require the use of a method,
requirement or procedure specified in the Uniform Standards. If the
results of the specified and alternative methods, requirements or
procedures do not agree, the results obtained by the method,
requirement or procedure specified in the Uniform Standards will
prevail.
Sec. 65.245 How do I request a waiver for performance testing
requirements?
You may request a waiver from the requirements to conduct a
performance test by following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(a) through (e) of this section. Unless and until a waiver of a
performance testing requirement has been granted by the Administrator
under this paragraph, you remain subject to the performance testing
requirements in Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829.
(a) Conditions of request. You may apply for a waiver from the
performance testing requirements specified if one or more of the
conditions in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) apply.
(1) You are meeting the Uniform Standards on a continuous basis.
(2) You are operating under an extension of compliance, as
specified in Sec. 63.6(i) of this chapter.
(3) You have requested an extension of compliance, as specified in
Sec. 61.11 and the Administrator is still considering that request.
(b) Contents of request. The request must include information
justifying your request for a waiver, such as the technical or economic
infeasibility, or the impracticality of the regulated source performing
the required test.
(c) Timing of request. The waiver application must be submitted, as
specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you request an extension of compliance under Sec. 63.6(i)
of this chapter, the application for a waiver of an initial performance
test must accompany the information required for the request for an
extension of compliance, and must be submitted on the schedule in Sec.
63.6(i) of this chapter.
(2) If you have not requested an extension of compliance or if you
have requested an extension of compliance and the Administrator is
still considering that request, the application for a waiver of a
performance test must be submitted at least 60 days before performance
testing would be required. The application may accompany a Notification
of Compliance Status Report or semiannual periodic report, as specified
in Sec. 65.225(c) or (d).
(d) Approval of request to waive performance test. The
Administrator will approve or deny a request for a waiver of a
performance test made under paragraph (a) of this section by completing
any one of the actions specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) Approves or denies an extension of compliance under Sec.
63.6(i)(8) or under Sec. 63.11.
(2) Approves or disapproves a performance test plan under Sec.
65.820(c).
(3) Makes a determination of compliance following the submission of
a required compliance status report or periodic report.
(4) Makes a determination of suitable progress towards compliance
following the submission of a compliance progress report.
(e) Waiver cancellation. Approval of any waiver granted under this
section does not abrogate the Administrator's authority under the Clean
Air Act or in any way prohibit the Administrator from later canceling
the waiver. The cancellation will be made only after notice is given to
you.
Sec. 65.250 How do I request to use an alternative test method?
You may submit a request for approval to use an alternative test
method (i.e., major, intermediate or minor change to a test method, or
an EPA test method other than one in the Uniform Standards), as
described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) Contents of request. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section, you must include the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the request for approval to use an
alternative test method.
(1) A justification for using the proposed alternative method
instead of using the method specified in the Uniform Standards.
(2) Results of applying Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A of
this part to validate the alternative test method. This may include the
use of only specific procedures of EPA Method 301, if use of such
procedures are sufficient to validate the alternative test method.
(3) For minor changes to a test method and for EPA test methods
other than those specified in the Uniform Standards, Method 301 at 40
CFR part 63, appendix A of this part is not required to validate the
test method.
(b) Timing of request. You must submit the request to use an
alternative test method at least 60 days before the performance test is
scheduled to begin. However, you may submit the request well in advance
of the date 60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin
to ensure a timely review by the Administrator in order for you to meet
the performance test date specified in the referencing subpart. This
request may be submitted as part of the performance test plan required
by Sec. 65.820.
(c) Review of alternative test methods. The Administrator will
determine whether your validation of the proposed alternative test
method is adequate and issue an approval or disapproval. If the request
for approval of an alternative test method is submitted with the
performance test plan, approval of the performance test plan will
indicate approval of the alternative test method. The procedure for
test plan approval is specified in Sec. 65.820.
(d) Use of alternative test method. You must follow the provisions
of paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) regarding the use of alternative test
methods.
[[Page 17979]]
(1) If you have not received notification of approval/disapproval
within 45 days after submission of the request to use an alternative
method and the request satisfies the requirements in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section, you may conduct the performance test using the
alternative method.
(2) If you use an alternative test method for a regulated source
during a required performance test, you must continue to use the
alternative test method for subsequent performance tests at that
regulated source until you receive approval from the Administrator to
use another test method, as allowed under this section.
(3) If the Administrator finds reasonable grounds to dispute the
results obtained by an alternative test method for the purposes of
demonstrating compliance with a relevant standard, the Administrator
may require the use of a test method specified in the Uniform
Standards.
(4) Neither the validation and approval process nor the failure to
validate an alternative test method abrogates your responsibility to
comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards.
Sec. 65.260 What are the procedures for approval of alternative means
of emission limitation?
(a) General procedures. You may request a determination of
equivalence for an alternative means of emission limitation to the
requirements of design, equipment, work practice or operational
standards of the Uniform Standards. If, in the judgment of the
Administrator, an alternative means of emission limitation will achieve
a reduction in regulated material emissions at least equivalent to the
reduction in emissions from that source achieved under any design,
equipment, work practice or operational standards (but not performance
standards) in the Uniform Standards, the Administrator will publish in
the Federal Register, a notice permitting the use of the alternative
means for purposes of compliance with that requirement. Such notice
will restrict the permission to the stationary source(s) or
category(ies) of sources from which the alternative emission standard
will achieve equivalent emission reductions.
(1) The notice may provide permission on the condition that the
alternative means of emission limitation must include requirements to
assure the proper operation and maintenance of equipment and practices
that would be required for compliance with the alternative emission
standard, including appropriate quality assurance and quality control
requirements that are deemed necessary.
(2) Any such notice will be published only after public notice and
an opportunity for a hearing.
(3) A manufacturer of control devices or monitoring equipment may
request an alternative means of emission limitation approval for their
product.
(b) Contents of submittal. You must include the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section in your
request for alternative means of emission limitation, as applicable.
(1) In order to obtain approval, any person seeking permission to
use an alternative means of emission limitation under this section must
collect, verify and submit to the Administrator information showing
that the alternative means achieves equivalent emission reductions. If
you seek permission to use an alternative means of emission limitation
and you have not previously performed testing, you must also submit the
proposed performance test plan required in Sec. 65.820(b). If you seek
permission to use an alternative means of emission limitation, based on
previously performed testing, you must submit the results of that
testing, a description of the procedures followed in testing or
monitoring and a description of pertinent conditions during testing or
monitoring.
(2) If you request an alternative means of emission limitation, you
must submit a description of the proposed testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting that you will use and the proposed basis
for demonstrating compliance.
(3) Any testing or monitoring conducted to request permission to
use an alternative emission standard must be appropriately quality
assured and quality controlled, as specified in Sec. 65.820(b), as
applicable.
(4) If you request the use of an alternate device for a fitting on
a floating roof, as described in Sec. 65.315(e), you must submit an
application, including emissions test results and an analysis
demonstrating that the alternate device has an emission factor that is
less than or equal to the emission factor for the device specified in
Sec. 65.315(a). The test results must include all documentation
required by the applicable test methods and documentation of monitoring
during the performance test of any operating parameters on which you
establish limits. The tests must be conducted using full-size or scale-
model storage vessels that accurately collect and measure all regulated
material emissions using a given control technique, and that accurately
simulate wind and account for other emission variables, such as
temperature and barometric pressure, or an engineering analysis that
the Administrator determines is an accurate method of determining
equivalence.
(c) Compliance. If the Administrator makes a determination that a
means of emission limitation is a permissible alternative to the
requirements of design, equipment, work practice or operational
standards of the Uniform Standards, you must either comply with the
alternative or comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards,
as applicable.
Sec. 65.265 What methods are incorporated by reference for the
Uniform Standards?
The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference
in the corresponding sections of the Uniform Standards. These
incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
These materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of the
approval, and notice of any change in these materials will be published
in the Federal Register. The materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding addresses noted in this section, and all are
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, U.S. EPA, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC, and at the EPA Library, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Room C261, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202)
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(a) The following materials are available for purchase from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 605-6000 or (800) 553-6847; or for
purchase from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
(1) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997
(EPA-454/R-98-015).
(2) Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16,
Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing
Facilities, August 2007, Final, (EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16) http:/
/www.epa.gov/
[[Page 17980]]
ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/index.html.
(3) Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Reactive Organic Compounds in
Heavy Crude Oil Using Gas Chromatography, http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/R9Testmethod.nsf.
(b) The following materials are available for purchase from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania 19428-2959, (610) 832-9585, http://www.astm.org.
(1) ASTM D6420-99(2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry.
(2) ASTM D1946-90(2006), Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed
Gas by Gas Chromatography.
(3) ASTM D4809-09a, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method).
(4) ASTM D2879-95(2011), Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types
in Low Olefinic Gasoline by Mass Spectrometry.
(c) The following materials are available for purchase from ASME,
Information Central Orders/Inquiries, P.O. Box 2300, Fairfield, New
Jersey 07007-2300, (800) 843-2763, http://www.asme.org.
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus].
(2) ASME B31.3-2010, Process Piping.
(d) The following materials are available for purchase from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Alexandria, Virginia
22312, (800) 553-6847, http://www.ntis.gov.
(1) Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and Vapors,
Zabetakis, M.G., U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 627, 1965.
(2) [Reserved].
(e) The following materials are available for purchase from the
American Petroleum Institute (API), 1220 L Street NW., Washington, DC
20005-4070, (202) 682-8000, http://www.api.org.
(1) Evaporative Loss From External Floating Roof Tanks, API MPMS
Chapter 19.2, September 1, 2003.
(2) [Reserved].
Sec. 65.270 How do I determine what regulated sources are in
regulated material service?
If you are subject to a uniform standard that includes requirements
for regulated sources ``in regulated material service,'' you must
determine if regulated sources or equipment are in regulated material
service using either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as
applicable.
(a) If the referencing subpart includes a procedure or definition
of ``in regulated material service,'' you must use the procedure or
definition of ``in regulated material service'' in the referencing
subpart.
(b) If the referencing subpart does not include a procedure or
definition of ``in regulated material service,'' you must use the
procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Regulated sources or equipment that can reasonably be expected
to be in regulated material service are presumed to be in regulated
material service unless you demonstrate that the regulated sources or
equipment are not in regulated material service.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1) and (3) of this section,
you must use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 and either of
the methods specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section
to demonstrate that regulated sources or equipment are not in regulated
material service.
(i) Determine the weight percent regulated material content of the
process fluid that is contained in or contacts the regulated source as
the arithmetic sum of the weight percent concentration of each compound
defined as regulated material. Demonstrate that the regulated material
concentration is less than 5 weight percent on an annual average basis.
(ii) Demonstrate that the non-regulated material content exceeds 95
percent by weight on an annual average basis.
(3) You may use good engineering judgment rather than the
procedures in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section to determine if
regulated sources or equipment are not in regulated material service.
However, when you and the Administrator do not agree on whether the
regulated sources or equipment are in regulated material service, you
must use the procedures in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to resolve
the disagreement.
Sec. 65.275 What authorities are not delegated to the states?
In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a state
under sections 111(c) and 112(l) of the Clean Air Act, the following
authorities are retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a
state:
(a) In Sec. 65.235, request for recordkeeping and reporting
waiver.
(b) In Sec. 65.240, major changes to monitoring methods.
(c) In Sec. 65.250, major changes to test methods or a different
EPA method than one specified in the Uniform Standards.
(d) In 65.260, alternative means of emissions limitation.
Sec. 65.280 How do I determine compliance with periodic requirements?
Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, if you are
subject to a requirement in the Uniform Standards to complete a
particular task on a periodic basis, you must comply, as described in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) Periods of time. All terms in the Uniform Standards that define
a period of time for completion of required tasks (e.g., daily, weekly,
monthly, quarterly, annually), refer to the standard calendar periods.
(b) Reasonable intervals. You may comply with such periodic
requirements by completing the required task any time within the
standard calendar period, provided there is a reasonable interval
between completion of two instances of the same task. Reasonable
intervals are described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) Tasks that you are required to complete weekly must be
separated by at least 3 calendar days.
(2) Tasks that you are required to complete monthly must be
separated by at least 14 calendar days.
(3) Tasks that you are required to complete bimonthly (i.e., every
2 calendar months) must be separated by at least 20 calendar days.
(4) Tasks that you are required to complete quarterly must be
separated by at least 30 calendar days.
(5) Tasks that you are required to complete three times per year
must be separated by at least 40 calendar days.
(6) Tasks that you are required to complete semiannually (i.e.,
once every 2 quarters or twice per year) must be separated by at least
60 calendar days.
(7) Tasks that you are required to complete annually must be
separated by at least 120 calendar days.
(8) Tasks that you are required to complete biennially (i.e., once
every 2 calendar years) must be completed every other calendar year.
(c) Exceptions. (1) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not
apply to reports that you are required to submit under the General
Provisions applicable to the referencing subpart (e.g., subpart A parts
60, 61 or 63).
(2) If the paragraph in the Uniform Standards that imposes a
periodic requirement specifies a different schedule for complying with
that requirement, you must follow that
[[Page 17981]]
schedule instead of the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
(3) Time periods may be changed by mutual agreement between you and
the Administrator, as specified in Sec. 65.225(j). For example, a
period could begin on the compliance date or another date, rather than
on the first day of the standard calendar period. For each time period
that is changed by agreement, the revised period applies until it is
changed. A new request is not necessary for each recurring period.
(4) Nothing in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be
construed as prohibiting you from conducting a periodic task at a more
frequent interval than required.
Sec. 65.295 What definitions apply to the Uniform Standards?
All terms used in the Uniform Standards have the meaning given them
in the Clean Air Act, the referencing subpart and in this section. The
definition in the referencing subpart takes precedence.
Alternative test method means any method of sampling and analyzing
for an air pollutant other than a test method specified in the Uniform
Standards. An alternative test method can include other EPA test
methods that are not specified by the Uniform Standards; methods other
than EPA test methods; or changes to test methods (i.e., minor,
intermediate or major changes to test methods). For methods other than
EPA standard test methods and changes other than minor changes to test
methods, you must demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction using
Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, that an alternative test
method produces results adequate for use in place of a test method
specified in the Uniform Standards.
Atmospheric storage vessel means any storage vessel that is not a
pressure vessel.
Automatic bleeder vent (or vacuum breaker vent) means a device used
to equalize the pressure of the vapor space across the deck as the
floating roof is either being landed on or floated off of its legs or
other support devices. Typically, the device consists of a well in the
deck with a cover. A guided leg is attached to the underside of the
cover which comes in contact with the floor when the storage vessel is
being emptied, just prior to the point that the floating roof lands on
its supports. When in contact with the bottom of the storage vessel,
the guided leg mechanically lifts the cover off the well.
Alternatively, the device may be activated by increased pressure (or
vacuum) in the vapor space below the landed floated roof that is
created by changes in the liquid level while the floating roof is
landed.
Barge means any vessel that transports regulated material liquids
in bulk on inland waterways or at sea.
Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode that may be
associated with a single unit operation. A unit operation may have more
than one batch emission episode. For example, a displacement of vapor
resulting from the charging of a vessel with regulated material will
result in a discrete emission episode that will last through the
duration of the charge and will have an average flow rate equal to the
rate of the charge. If the vessel is then heated, there will also be
another discrete emission episode resulting from the expulsion of
expanded vapor. Both emission episodes may occur in the same vessel or
unit operation. There are possibly other emission episodes that may
occur from the vessel or other process equipment, depending on process
operations.
Batch operation means a noncontinuous operation involving
intermittent or discontinuous feed into process vessels and, in
general, involves the emptying of the process vessels after the
operation ceases and prior to beginning a new operation. Addition of
raw material and withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a
batch operation.
Boiler means any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful
energy in the form of steam and is not an incinerator or a process
heater.
Bottoms receiver means a tank that collects bottoms from continuous
distillation before the stream is sent for storage or for further
downstream processing. A rundown tank is an example of a bottoms
receiver.
Breakthrough means the time when the level of regulated material
detected is at the highest concentration allowed to be discharged from
an adsorber system, as determined by the referencing subpart.
By compound means by individual stream components, not carbon
equivalents.
Cargo tank means a liquid-carrying tank permanently attached and
forming an integral part of a motor vehicle or truck trailer. This term
also refers to the entire cargo tank motor vehicle or trailer. Vacuum
trucks used exclusively for maintenance or spill response are not
considered cargo tanks.
Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to
change the position of a valve (e.g., from opened to closed) in such a
way that the position of the valve cannot be changed without breaking
the seal.
Catalytic oxidizer means a thermal oxidizer where the gas stream,
after passing through the enclosed combustion chamber, also passes
through a catalyst bed. The catalyst has the effect of increasing the
oxidation reaction rate, enabling conversion at lower reaction
temperatures than in thermal oxidizers.
Closed-loop system means an enclosed system that returns process
fluid to the process and is not vented directly to the atmosphere.
Closed-purge system means a system or combination of systems and
portable containers to capture purged liquids. Containers for purged
liquids must be covered or closed when not being filled or emptied.
Closed vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections and, if
necessary, flow inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from an
emission point to a control device.
Combustion device means an individual unit of equipment, such as an
incinerator, process heater or boiler, used for the combustion of
organic emissions.
Connector means flanged, screwed or other joined fittings used to
connect pipelines, a pipeline and a process vessel, or a pipeline and a
piece of equipment, or that close an opening in a pipe that could be
connected to another pipe. A common connector is a flange. Joined
fittings welded completely around the circumference of the interface
are not considered connectors.
Container means a portable unit in which a regulated material is
stored, transported, treated or otherwise handled. Examples of
containers include, but are not limited to, drums, dumpsters, roll-off
boxes and portable cargo containers known as ``portable tanks'' or
``totes.'' Transport vehicles and barges are not containers.
Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) means the total
equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and
availability requirements of this subpart, used to sample, condition
(if applicable), analyze and provide a record of emissions.
Continuous operation means any operation that is not a batch
operation.
Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) means the total
equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and
availability requirements of the Uniform Standards, used to sample,
condition (if
[[Page 17982]]
applicable), analyze and provide a record of process or control system
parameters.
Continuous record means documentation, either in hard copy or
computer readable form, of data values measured at least once every 15
minutes and recorded at the frequency specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
Control device means, with the exceptions noted below, a combustion
device, recovery device, recapture device or any combination of these
devices used to comply with this subpart or a referencing subpart.
Process condensers or fuel gas systems are not considered to be control
devices.
Control system means the combination of the closed vent system and
the control devices used to collect and control vapors or gases from a
regulated source.
Corrective action analysis and/or Corrective action plan means a
description of all reasonable interim and long-term measures, if any,
that are available, and an explanation of why the selected corrective
action is the best alternative, including, but not limited to, any
consideration of cost effectiveness.
Day means a calendar day.
Deck cover means a device that covers an opening in a floating roof
deck. Some deck covers move horizontally relative to the deck (i.e., a
sliding cover).
Double block and bleed system means two block valves connected in
series with a bleed valve or line that can vent the line between the
two block valves.
Ductwork means a conveyance system such as those commonly used for
heating and ventilation systems. It is often made of sheet metal and
often has sections connected by screws or crimping. Hard-piping is not
ductwork.
Empty or emptying means the partial or complete removal of stored
liquid from a storage vessel. Storage vessels that contain liquid only
as wall or bottom clingage, or in pools due to bottom irregularities,
are considered completely empty.
Equipment means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief
device (PRD), sampling connection system, open-ended valve or line,
valve, connector and instrumentation system that contains or contacts
regulated material; and any control devices or systems used to comply
with subpart J of this part. Equipment does not include process
equipment, monitoring equipment, vapor collection equipment or testing
equipment.
External floating roof or EFR means a floating roof located in a
storage vessel without a fixed roof.
Fill or filling means the introduction of liquid into a storage
vessel or container, but not necessarily to capacity.
First attempt at repair means to take action for the purpose of
stopping or reducing leakage of regulated material to the atmosphere. A
first attempt at repair includes monitoring, as specified in Sec.
65.431(a) and (b) to verify that the leak is repaired, unless you
determine by other means that the leak is not repaired.
Fittings means any cover or other device to close an opening
through a fixed roof or through the deck of a floating roof for
automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents), rim space vents, leg
sleeves, deck drains, access hatches, gauge float wells, sample wells,
columns, guidepoles, ladders, conservation vents, PRD or any other
opening on the fixed roof or floating roof deck.
Fixed roof storage vessel means a vessel with roof that is mounted
(i.e., permanently affixed) on a storage vessel and that does not move
with fluctuations in stored liquid level. All horizontal tanks are
classified as fixed roof storage vessels.
Flexible enclosure device means a seal made of an elastomeric
fabric (or other material) which completely encloses a slotted
guidepole or ladder and eliminates the vapor emission pathway from
inside the storage vessel through the guidepole slots or ladder slots
to the outside air.
Flexible fabric sleeve seal means a seal made of an elastomeric
fabric (or other material) which covers an opening in a floating roof
deck, and which allows the penetration of a fixed roof support column.
The seal is attached to the rim of the deck opening and extends to the
outer surface of the column. The seal is draped (but does not contact
the stored liquid) to allow the horizontal movement of the deck
relative to the column.
Floating roof means a roof that floats on the surface of the liquid
in a storage vessel. A floating roof substantially covers the stored
liquid surface (but is not necessarily in contact with the entire
surface), and is comprised of a deck, a rim seal and miscellaneous deck
fittings.
Flow indicator means a device that indicates whether gas flow is or
whether the valve position would allow gas flow to be present in a
line.
Fuel gas means gases that are combusted to derive useful work or
heat.
Fuel gas system means the offsite and onsite piping and flow and
pressure control system that gathers gaseous streams generated by
onsite operations, may blend them with other sources of gas and
transports the gaseous streams for use as fuel gas in combustion
devices or in-process combustion equipment, such as furnaces and gas
turbines, either singly or in combination. Piping that routes emissions
to boilers or process heaters as the primary fuel or introduced with
the primary fuel are considered fuel gas systems.
Halogenated vent stream or halogenated stream means a stream
determined to have a mass rate of halogen atoms of 0.45 kilograms per
hour or greater, determined by the procedures presented in Sec.
65.702(c).
Hard-piping means pipe or tubing that is manufactured and properly
installed using good engineering judgment and standards, such as ASME
B31.3-2010, Process Piping (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
65.265).
In gas and vapor service means that a piece of equipment in
regulated material service contains a gas or vapor at operating
conditions.
In heavy liquid service means that a piece of equipment in
regulated material service is not in gas and vapor service or in light
liquid service.
In light liquid service means that a piece of equipment in
regulated material service contains a liquid that meets the following
conditions: (1) The vapor pressure of one or more of the organic
compounds is greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 degrees Celsius; (2)
The total concentration of the pure organic compounds constituents
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 degrees
Celsius is equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight of the total
process stream; (3) The fluid is a liquid at operating conditions.
(Note to definition of ``in light liquid service'': Vapor pressures may
be determined by standard reference texts or ASTM D-2879(2011),
Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Low Olefinic Gasoline by
Mass Spectrometry (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265).
In liquid service means that a piece of equipment in regulated
material service is not in gas and vapor service.
In regulated material service means, unless specified otherwise in
the referencing subpart, a regulated source or portion of a regulated
source (e.g., a piece of equipment) that either contains or contacts a
fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 5 percent by weight of regulated
material (as defined in the referencing subpart), as determined
according to the provisions of Sec. 65.270. The provisions of Sec.
65.270 also specify how to determine that a regulated source or portion
of a
[[Page 17983]]
regulated source is not in regulated material service.
In vacuum service means that equipment, a closed vent system, fuel
gas system or storage vessel is operating at an internal pressure that
is at least 0.7 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) below ambient
pressure.
Initial fill means the first introduction of liquid into a storage
vessel that is either newly constructed or has not contained any
regulated material for a year or longer.
Initial startup means, for new sources, the first time the source
begins production. For additions or changes not defined as a new source
by the referencing subpart, initial startup means the first time
additional or changed equipment is put into operation. Initial startup
does not include operation solely for testing of equipment. Initial
startup does not include subsequent startup of process units following
malfunction or process unit shutdowns. Except for equipment leaks,
initial startup also does not include subsequent startups (of process
units following changes in product for flexible operation units or
following recharging of equipment in batch operations).
In-situ sampling systems means non-extractive samplers or in-line
samplers.
Instrumentation system means a group of equipment used to condition
and convey a sample of the process fluid to analyzers and instruments
for the purpose of determining process operating conditions (e.g.,
composition, pressure, flow, etc.). Valves and connectors are the
predominant type of equipment used in instrumentation systems; however,
other types of equipment may also be included in these systems. Only
valves nominally 0.5 inches and smaller, and connectors nominally 0.75
inches and smaller in diameter are considered instrumentation systems.
Valves greater than nominally 0.5 inches and connectors greater than
nominally 0.75 inches associated with instrumentation systems are not
considered part of instrumentation systems and must be monitored
individually.
Intermediate change to monitoring means a modification to federally
required monitoring involving ``proven technology'' (generally accepted
by the scientific community as equivalent or better) that is applied on
a site-specific basis and that may have the potential to decrease the
stringency of the associated emission limitation or standard. Though
site-specific, an intermediate change may set a national precedent for
a source category and may ultimately result in a revision to the
federally required monitoring. Examples of intermediate changes to
monitoring include, but are not limited to:
(1) Use of a CEMS in lieu of a parameter monitoring approach;
(2) Decreased frequency for non-continuous parameter monitoring or
physical inspections;
(3) Changes to quality control requirements for parameter
monitoring; and
(4) Use of an electronic data reduction system in lieu of manual
data reduction.
Intermediate change to test method means a within-method
modification to a federally enforceable test method involving ``proven
technology'' (generally accepted by the scientific community as
equivalent or better) that is applied on a site-specific basis and that
may have the potential to decrease the stringency of the associated
emission limitation or standard. Though site-specific, an intermediate
change may set a national precedent for a source category and may
ultimately result in a revision to the federally enforceable test
method. In order to be approved, an intermediate change must be
validated according to EPA Method 301 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) to
demonstrate that it provides equal or improved accuracy and precision.
Examples of intermediate changes to a test method include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Modifications to a test method's sampling procedure, including
substitution of sampling equipment that has been demonstrated for a
particular sample matrix and use of a different impinger absorbing
solution;
(2) Changes in sample recovery procedures and analytical
techniques, such as changes to sample holding times and use of a
different analytical finish with proven capability for the analyte of
interest; and
(3) ``Combining'' a federally required method with another proven
method for application to processes emitting multiple pollutants.
Internal floating roof or IFR means a floating roof located in a
storage vessel with a fixed roof. An EFR located in a storage vessel to
which a fixed roof has been added is considered to be an internal
floating roof.
Internal guidepole sleeve means a cylindrical device that fits on
the inside of a slotted guidepole and blocks the vapor emission pathway
from the interior of the guidepole through the guidepole slots to the
outside air.
Liquid-mounted seal means a resilient or liquid-filled rim seal
designed to contact the stored liquid.
Liquids dripping means any visible leakage from the seal including
dripping, spraying, misting, clouding and ice formation. Indications of
liquids dripping include puddling or new stains that are indicative of
an existing evaporated drip.
Major change to monitoring means a modification to federally
required monitoring that uses ``unproven technology or procedures''
(not generally accepted by the scientific community) or is an entirely
new method (sometimes necessary when the required monitoring is
unsuitable). A major change to monitoring may be site-specific or may
apply to one or more source categories and will almost always set a
national precedent. Examples of major changes to monitoring include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Use of a new monitoring approach developed to apply to a
control technology not contemplated in the applicable regulation;
(2) Use of a predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS) in place
of a required CEMS;
(3) Use of alternative calibration procedures that do not involve
calibration gases or test cells;
(4) Use of an analytical technology that differs from that
specified by a performance specification;
(5) Decreased monitoring frequency for a CEMS, continuous opacity
monitoring system, PEMS or CPMS;
(6) Decreased monitoring frequency for a leak detection and repair
program; and
(7) Use of alternative averaging times for reporting purposes.
Major change to test method means a modification to a federally
enforceable test method that uses ``unproven technology or procedures''
(not generally accepted by the scientific community) or is an entirely
new method (sometimes necessary when the required test method is
unsuitable). A major change to a test method may be site-specific or
may apply to one or more sources or source categories, and will almost
always set a national precedent. In order to be approved, a major
change must be validated according to EPA Method 301 (40 CFR part 63,
appendix A). Examples of major changes to a test method include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Use of an unproven analytical finish;
(2) Use of a method developed to fill a test method gap;
(3) Use of a new test method developed to apply to a control
technology not contemplated in the applicable regulation; and
(4) Combining two or more sampling/analytical methods (at least one
[[Page 17984]]
unproven) into one for application to processes emitting multiple
pollutants.
Maximum representative operating conditions means process operating
conditions that result in the most challenging condition for the
control device. The most challenging condition for the control device
may include, but is not limited to, the highest hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) mass loading rate to the control device or the highest HAP mass
loading rate of constituents that approach the limits of solubility for
scrubbing media.
Maximum true vapor pressure or MTVP means the equilibrium partial
pressure exerted by the total regulated material in the stored or
transferred liquid at the temperature equal to the highest calendar-
month average of the liquid storage or transfer temperature for liquids
stored or transferred above or below the ambient temperature or at the
local maximum monthly average temperature, as reported by the National
Weather Service, for liquids stored or transferred at the ambient
temperature, as determined using methods specified in Sec. 65.306.
Mechanical shoe seal or metallic shoe seal means a rim seal
consisting of a band of metal (or other suitable material) as the
sliding contact with the wall of the storage vessel, and a fabric seal
to close the annular space between the band and the rim of the floating
roof deck. The band is typically formed as a series of sheets (shoes)
that are overlapped or joined together to form a ring. The sheets are
held vertically against the wall of the storage vessel by springs,
weighted levers or other mechanisms and are connected to the floating
roof by braces or other means. The lower end of the band extends into
the stored liquid.
Minor change to monitoring means:
(1) A modification to federally required monitoring that:
(i) Does not decrease the stringency of the compliance and
enforcement measures for the relevant standard;
(ii) Has no national significance (e.g., does not affect
implementation of the applicable regulation for other regulated
sources, does not set a national precedent and individually does not
result in a revision to the monitoring requirements); and
(iii) Is site-specific, made to reflect or accommodate the
operational characteristics, physical constraints or safety concerns of
a regulated source.
(2) Examples of minor changes to monitoring include, but are not
limited to:
(i) Modifications to a sampling procedure, such as use of an
improved sample conditioning system to reduce maintenance requirements;
(ii) Increased monitoring frequency; and
(iii) Modification of the environmental shelter to moderate
temperature fluctuation and, thus, protect the analytical
instrumentation.
Minor change to test method means:
(1) A modification to a federally enforceable test method that:
(i) Does not decrease the stringency of the emission limitation or
standard;
(ii) Has no national significance (e.g., does not affect
implementation of the applicable regulation for other regulated
sources, does not set a national precedent and individually does not
result in a revision to the test method); and
(iii) Is site-specific, made to reflect or accommodate the
operational characteristics, physical constraints or safety concerns of
a regulated source.
(2) Examples of minor changes to a test method include, but are not
limited to:
(i) Field adjustments in a test method's sampling procedure, such
as a modified sampling traverse, or location to avoid interference from
an obstruction in the stack, increasing the sampling time or volume,
use of additional impingers for a high moisture situation, accepting
particulate emission results for a test run that was conducted with a
lower-than-specified temperature, substitution of a material in the
sampling train that has been demonstrated to be more inert for the
sample matrix; and
(ii) Changes in recovery and analytical techniques, such as a
change in quality control/quality assurance requirements needed to
adjust for analysis of a certain sample matrix.
Monitoring means the collection and use of measurement data or
other information to control the operation of a process or pollution
control device or to verify a work practice standard relative to
assuring compliance with applicable requirements. Monitoring is
composed of four elements:
(1) Indicator(s) of performance--the parameter or parameters you
measure or observe for demonstrating proper operation of the pollution
control measures or compliance with the applicable emissions limitation
or standard. Indicators of performance may include direct or predicted
emissions measurements (including opacity), operational parametric
values that correspond to process or control device (and capture
system) efficiencies or emissions rates and recorded findings of
inspection of work practice activities, materials tracking or design
characteristics. Indicators may be expressed as a single maximum or
minimum value, a function of process variables (for example, within a
range of pressure drops), a particular operational or work practice
status (for example, a damper position, completion of a waste recovery
task, materials tracking) or an interdependency between two or among
more than two variables.
(2) Measurement techniques--the means by which you gather and
record information of or about the indicators of performance. The
components of the measurement technique include the detector type,
location and installation specifications, inspection procedures, and
quality assurance and quality control measures. Examples of measurement
techniques include CEMS, continuous opacity monitoring systems, CPMS,
and manual inspections that include making records of process
conditions or work practices.
(3) Monitoring frequency--the number of times you obtain and record
monitoring data over a specified time interval. Examples of monitoring
frequencies include at least four points equally paced for each hour
for continuous emissions or parametric monitoring systems, at least
every 10 seconds for continuous opacity monitoring systems and at least
once per operating day (or week, month, etc.) for work practice or
design inspections.
(4) Averaging time--the period over which you average and use data
to verify proper operation of the pollution control approach or
compliance with the emissions limitation or standard. Examples of
averaging time include a 3-hour average in units of the emissions
limitation, a 30-day rolling average emissions value, a daily average
of a control device operational parametric range and an instantaneous
alarm.
Non-repairable means that it is technically infeasible to repair a
piece of equipment from which a leak has been detected without a
process unit shutdown.
Nonstandard batch means a batch process that is operated outside of
the range of operating conditions that are documented in an existing
operating scenario, but is still a reasonably anticipated event. For
example, a nonstandard batch occurs when additional processing or
processing at different operating conditions must be conducted to
produce a product that is normally produced under the conditions
described by the standard batch. A nonstandard batch may be necessary,
as a result of a malfunction, but it is not itself a malfunction.
Open-ended valve or line means any valve, except relief valves,
having one
[[Page 17985]]
side of the valve seat in contact with process fluid and one side open
to atmosphere, either directly or through any length of open piping. An
open-ended valve or line with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve
on the side that would be otherwise open to the atmosphere is still
considered an open-ended valve or line.
Operating block means a period of time that is equal to the time
from the beginning to end of batch process operations within a process.
Optical gas imaging instrument means an instrument capable of
producing an image that makes visible emissions that otherwise may be
invisible to the naked eye.
Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls or supervises a regulated source or a stationary source of
which a regulated source is a part.
Performance test means the collection of data resulting from the
execution of a test method (usually three emission test runs) used to
demonstrate compliance with a relevant emission limit, as specified in
the performance test section of 40 CFR part 65, subpart M or in the
referencing subpart.
Pole float means a float located inside a guidepole that floats on
the surface of the stored liquid. The rim of the float has a wiper or
seal that extends to the inner surface of the pole.
Pole sleeve means a device that extends from either the cover or
the rim of an opening in a floating roof deck to the outer surface of a
pole that passes through the opening. The sleeve extends into the
stored liquid.
Pole wiper means a seal that extends from either the cover or the
rim of an opening in a floating roof deck to the outer surface of a
pole that passes through the opening.
Polymerizing monomer means a compound that may form polymer buildup
in pump mechanical seals resulting in rapid mechanical seal failure.
Pressure release means the emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the set pressure of the PRD. This
release may be one release or a series of releases over a short time
period.
Pressure relief device (PRD) means a safety device used to prevent
operating pressures from exceeding the maximum allowable working
pressure of the process component. Examples of pressure relief devices
are a spring-loaded pressure relief valve and a rupture disk. Except
for devices used to comply with the vapor balancing requirements in
Sec. 65.320(c), devices that are actuated either by a pressure of less
than or equal to 2.5 psig or by a vacuum are not pressure relief
devices.
Pressure vessel means a storage vessel that is used to store
liquids or gases and is designed not to vent to the atmosphere as a
result of compression of the vapor headspace in the pressure vessel
during filling of the pressure vessel to its design capacity.
Primary fuel means the fuel that provides the principal heat input
to a combustion device. To be considered primary, the fuel must be able
to sustain operation without the addition of other fuels.
Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to
recover material as an integral part of a regulated batch process. All
condensers recovering condensate from a regulated batch process at or
above the boiling point or all condensers in line prior to a vacuum
source, are considered process condensers. Typically, a primary
condenser or condensers in series, are considered to be integral to the
batch regulated process if they are capable of and normally used for
the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e., net positive
heating value), use, reuse or for sale for fuel value, use or reuse.
This definition does not apply to a condenser that is used to remove
materials that would hinder performance of a downstream recovery device
as follows:
(1) To remove water vapor that would cause icing in a downstream
condenser.
(2) To remove water vapor that would negatively affect the
adsorption capacity of carbon in a downstream carbon adsorber.
(3) To remove high molecular weight organic compounds or other
organic compounds that would be difficult to remove during regeneration
of a downstream carbon adsorber.
Process heater means an enclosed combustion device that transfers
heat liberated by burning fuel directly to process streams or to heat
transfer liquids other than water. A process heater may, as a secondary
function, heat water in unfired heat recovery sections.
Process tank means a tank or other vessel that is used within a
process to collect material discharged from a feedstock storage vessel
or component within the process before the material is transferred to
other components within the process or a product storage vessel.
Examples of process tanks include surge control vessels, bottoms
receivers and weigh tanks. In addition, all vessels in which a unit
operation is conducted, including, but not limited to reaction, mixing
and separation are process tanks.
Process unit means, unless specified otherwise in the applicable
referencing subpart, the components assembled to produce an intended
intermediate or final product. A process unit can operate independently
if supplied with sufficient feed or raw materials and sufficient
storage facilities for the product. All components located within the
fence line of the plant site are included in the process unit.
Components located offsite are not included within any process unit.
Process unit shutdown means a work practice or operational
procedure that stops production from a process unit, or part of a
process unit during which it is technically feasible to clear process
material from a process unit, or part of a process unit, consistent
with safety constraints and during which, repairs can be affected. The
following are not considered process unit shutdowns:
(1) An unscheduled work practice or operations procedure that stops
production from a process unit, or part of a process unit, for less
than 24 hours.
(2) An unscheduled work practice or operations procedure that would
stop production from a process unit, or part of a process unit, for a
shorter period of time than would be required to clear the process
unit, or part of the process unit of materials and start up the unit,
and would result in greater emissions than delay of repair of leaking
components, until the next scheduled process unit shutdown.
(3) The use of spare equipment and technically feasible bypassing
of equipment without stopping production.
Referencing subpart means the subpart that directs you to comply
with one or more applicable Uniform Standards (subparts I through M of
this part). A referencing subpart for one Uniform Standard may also be
a referencing subpart for another Uniform Standard.
Regulated material means chemicals or groups of chemicals (such as
volatile organic compounds or HAP) that are regulated by the
referencing subpart.
Regulated source means the stationary source, the group of
stationary sources or the portion of a stationary source that is
regulated by a relevant standard or other requirement established,
pursuant to a referencing subpart.
Repair means that:
(1) If indications of a potential leak or liquids dripping are
observed during sensory monitoring or a visual inspection, then the
equipment, seal, fitting or other emissions source is adjusted, or
otherwise altered, to eliminate the indications of a potential leak or
liquids dripping.
[[Page 17986]]
(2) If a leak is detected by instrument monitoring, then the
equipment, seal, fitting or other emissions source is adjusted or
otherwise altered to eliminate a leak, as defined in the applicable
sections of subparts I through M of this part and the emissions source
is monitored, as specified in Sec. 65.431(a) and (b) to verify that
emissions are below the applicable instrument reading that defines a
leak.
(3) If a leak is detected by a sensor or by failure of one or more
design or inspection criteria, then the equipment, seal, fitting or
other emissions source is adjusted, or otherwise altered, to return the
emissions source to conditions such that the sensor no longer indicates
a leak or that the emissions source is meeting the design or inspection
criteria, as applicable.
(4) If a leak is detected by optical gas imaging, then the
equipment, seal, fitting or other emissions source is adjusted, or
otherwise altered, to eliminate the leak and the emissions source is
monitored, as specified in Sec. 65.450(b)(2) to verify that the leak
can no longer be imaged by the optical gas imaging instrument.
(5) Repair does not mean repairs to CEMS or CPMS.
Rim seal means a device attached to the rim of a floating roof deck
that spans the annular space between the deck and the wall of the
storage vessel. When a floating roof has only one such device, it is a
primary seal; when there are two seals (one mounted above the other),
the lower seal is the primary seal and the upper seal is the secondary
seal.
Run means one of a series of emission or other measurements needed
to determine emissions for a representative operating period or cycle,
as specified in 40 CFR part 65, subpart M or in the referencing
subpart. Unless otherwise specified, a run may be either intermittent
or continuous within the limits of good engineering practice.
Run down tank means a tank in which the product from a still,
agitator or other processing equipment is received, and from which, the
product is pumped to a storage vessel.
Rupture disk means a PRD that consists of a diaphragm held between
flanges. The diaphragm splits when the pressure on the process side
exceeds the design set pressure.
Sampling connection system means an assembly of piping and
equipment within a process unit used during periods of representative
operation to take samples of the process fluid. Lines that convey
samples to analyzers and analyzer bypass lines are part of sampling
connection systems. A device or apparatus used to take non-routine grab
samples is not considered a sampling connection system.
Secondary fuel means a fuel fired through a burner other than the
primary fuel burner that provides supplementary heat, in addition to
the heat provided by the primary fuel.
Sensor means a device that measures a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity, such as temperature, pressure, flow
rate, pH or liquid level.
Sensory monitoring means visual, audible, olfactory or any other
detection method used to determine a potential leak to the atmosphere.
Set pressure means the pressure at which a properly operating PRD
begins to open to relieve atypical process system operating pressure.
Slotted guidepole means a guidepole or gaugepole that has slots or
holes through the wall of the pole. The slots or holes allow the stored
liquid to flow into the pole at liquid levels above the lowest
operating level.
Small boiler or process heater means a boiler or process heater
that has a design capacity less than 44 megawatts, and in which the
vent stream is introduced with the combustion air or as a secondary
fuel.
Startup means the setting into operation of a process unit, a piece
of equipment or a control device that is subject to the Uniform
Standards.
Storage capacity means the internal volume of a storage vessel from
the floor to the top of the shell. For example, for a flat-bottomed
storage vessel, the storage capacity is determined by multiplying the
internal cross-sectional area of the storage vessel by the height of
the shell. The calculation must be modified, as necessary, to account
for floors that are not flat (e.g., slope-bottomed, cone-up or cone-
down).
Storage vessel means a stationary unit that is constructed of non-
earthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass or
plastic), which provides structural support and is designed to hold an
accumulation of liquids or other materials. The following are not
considered storage vessels:
(1) Vessels permanently attached to motor vehicle, such as trucks,
railcars, barges or ships;
(2) Vessels storing liquid that contains regulated material only as
an impurity;
(3) Wastewater tanks; and
(4) Process tanks.
Submerged loading means the filling of a transport vehicle through
a submerged fill pipe whose discharge is no more than 6 inches from the
bottom of the tank. Bottom loading of transport vehicles is included in
this definition.
Supplemental combustion air means the air that is added to a vent
stream after the vent stream leaves the unit operation. Air that is
part of the vent stream as a result of the nature of the unit operation
is not considered supplemental combustion air. Air required to operate
combustion device burner(s) is not considered supplemental combustion
air. Air required to ensure the proper operation of catalytic
oxidizers, to include the intermittent addition of air upstream of the
catalyst bed to maintain a minimum threshold flow rate through the
catalyst bed or to avoid excessive temperatures in the catalyst bed, is
not considered to be supplemental combustion air.
Surge control vessel means feed drums, recycle drums and
intermediate vessels as part of any continuous operation. Surge control
vessels are used within a process unit when in-process storage, mixing
or management of flow rates or volumes is needed to introduce material
into continuous operations.
Tank car means an unpowered type of rolling stock (or vehicle) with
a permanently attached vessel that is designed to carry liquid freight
by rail.
Thermal oxidizer means a combustion device with an enclosed
combustion chamber (i.e., an enclosed fire box) that is used for
destroying organic compounds. Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat waste
gas to combustion temperatures.
Transfer operations means the loading into a transport vehicle or
container of organic liquids from a transfer rack.
Transfer rack means a single system used to load organic liquids
into transport vehicles or containers. It includes all loading and
unloading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves and other
piping and equipment necessary for the transfer operation. Transfer
equipment and operations that are physically separate (i.e., do not
share common piping, valves and other equipment) are considered to be
separate transfer racks.
Transport vehicle means a cargo tank or tank car.
Uniform Standard(s) mean(s) any one or all of subparts I, J, K, L
and M of this part.
Unslotted guidepole or solid guidepole means a guidepole or
gaugepole that does not have slots or holes through the wall of the
pole at or above the level of the floating roof when it is at its
lowest operating level.
Vapor-mounted seal means a rim seal designed not to be in contact
with the stored liquid. Vapor-mounted seals may include, but are not
limited to, resilient seals and flexible wiper seals.
[[Page 17987]]
Wastewater stream means the wastewater generated by a particular
process unit, tank or treatment process.
Wastewater tank means a stationary structure that is designed to
contain an accumulation of wastewater or any liquid or solid material
containing volatile organics that is removed from a wastewater stream
and is constructed of non-earthen materials (e.g., wood, concrete,
steel, plastic) that provides structural support.
You means an owner or operator of a regulated source under the
Uniform Standards.
Table 1 to Subpart H of Part 65--Applicable 40 CFR Parts 60, 61 and 63
General Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions from 40 CFR parts
60, 61 and 63 that continue to apply
Part of 40 CFR to owners and operators of regulated
sources subject to the uniform
standards of this part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 40 CFR part 60, subpart A Sec. 60.1
provisions for referencing
subparts from part 60.
Sec. Sec. 60.2, 60.3, 60.4 \1\
Sec. 60.5
Sec. 60.6
Sec. 60.7(a)(1) and (a)(3)
Sec. 60.8(a)
Sec. Sec. 60.9, 60.10, 60.12
Sec. 60.14
Sec. 60.15
Sec. 60.16
Sec. 60.17
B. 40 CFR part 61, subpart A Sec. Sec. 61.01 through 61.03,
provisions for referencing 61.04,\1\ 61.05 through 61.09
subparts from part 61.
Sec. 61.10(b)
Sec. 61.11
Sec. 61.13(a)
Sec. Sec. 61.15 through 61.19
C. 40 CFR part 63, subpart A Sec. 63.1 \2\
provisions for referencing
subparts from part 63.
Sec. Sec. 63.2, 63.3, 63.4
Sec. 63.5
Sec. 63.6(a) through (d), (i) and
(j)
Sec. 63.7(a) \3\
Sec. 63.9(b), (c), (d), (h)(5)
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv), (d)(4)
Sec. 63.11(a), (c), (d), (e)
Sec. Sec. 63.12, 63.13, 63.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except that the requirements associated with where to submit reports
does not apply; electronic submittal is required, as specified in Sec.
65.225.
\2\ Except for Sec. 63.1(a)(10) through (12).
\3\ Except that a waiver of performance testing is specified in Sec.
65.245, and the conditions of Sec. 63.7(c)(3)(ii)(B) do not apply to
this paragraph.
3. Add subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessels
and Transfer Operations
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
65.300 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.301 Am I subject to this subpart?
65.302 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
65.303 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
General Requirements
65.305 What requirements in this subpart apply to me?
65.306 How must I determine the MTVP of stored material?
Standards and Compliance Requirements for Storage Vessels
65.310 What requirements must I meet for an atmospheric storage
vessel equipped with a fixed roof?
65.315 What requirements must I meet for an atmospheric storage
vessel with a floating roof?
65.320 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof atmospheric
storage vessel if I use vapor balance?
65.325 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof atmospheric
storage vessel if I route emissions through a closed vent system to
a control device?
65.330 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof atmospheric
storage vessel if I route emissions to a fuel gas system?
65.340 What requirements must I meet for a pressure vessel?
Standards and Compliance Requirements for Transfer Operations
65.360 What requirements must I meet for control of transport
vehicles and transfer operations to load transport vehicles?
65.370 What requirements must I meet for control of transfer
operations to load containers?
Recordkeeping and Reporting
65.380 What records must I keep?
65.382 What information must I submit in my Notification of
Compliance Status?
65.384 What information must I submit in my semiannual periodic
report?
65.386 What information must I submit in my annual periodic report?
65.388 What other reports must I submit and when?
Other Requirements and Information
65.390 What definitions apply to this subpart?
[[Page 17988]]
List of Tables in Subpart I of Part 65
Table 1 to Subpart I of Part 65--Standards and Compliance
Requirements for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations
Table 2 to Subpart I of Part 65--Inspection and Monitoring
Requirements and Schedule for Storage Vessels Equipped With an IFR
Table 3 to Subpart I of Part 65--Inspection and Monitoring
Requirements and Schedule for Storage Vessels Equipped With an EFR
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 65.300 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart specifies requirements to meet the emission standards
of a referencing subpart for storage vessels and transfer operations.
Sec. 65.301 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you are an owner or operator who
is subject to a referencing subpart and you have been expressly
directed to comply with the Uniform Standards of this subpart by a
referencing subpart.
Sec. 65.302 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
This subpart applies to storage vessels and transfer operations
that contain or contact regulated material and are subject to a
referencing subpart.
Sec. 65.303 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
The General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this
subpart, as specified in subpart H of this part.
General Requirements
Sec. 65.305 What requirements in this subpart apply to me?
The provisions of this subpart apply to storage vessels and
transfer operations that contain or contact regulated material, as
specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(a) For each atmospheric storage vessel that meets the requirements
in item 1 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with Sec.
65.310. Alternatively, you may elect to comply with either paragraph
(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section.
(1) Comply with Sec. 65.310 if you install an internal floating
roof, vapor balance or connect the storage vessel to a closed vent
system and control device, but you are not required to comply with
Sec. 65.315, Sec. 65.320 or Sec. 65.325.
(2) Comply with any of the options in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(b) For each atmospheric storage vessel that meets the size and
maximum true vapor pressure (MTVP) thresholds in item 2 or item 3 of
Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with either paragraph (b)(1),
(2), (3) or (4) of this section.
(1) Use an external floating roof or a fixed roof with an internal
floating roof, in accordance with Sec. 65.315. This option may be used
only if the MTVP of the stored liquid is less than 76.6 kilopascals
(kPa).
(2) Vapor balance in accordance with Sec. 65.320.
(3) Maintain a fixed roof and route emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device, in accordance with Sec. 65.325.
(4) Route emissions to a fuel gas system in accordance with Sec.
65.330. This option may not be used when the displaced vapors from the
storage vessel include halogenated compounds.
(c) For each pressure vessel, you must comply with Sec. 65.340.
(d) For transfer operations that involve loading of transport
vehicles, you must comply with Sec. 65.360.
(e) For transfer operations that involve loading of containers, you
must comply with Sec. 65.370.
Sec. 65.306 How must I determine the MTVP of stored material?
(a) Determine the MTVP at the times specified in paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section and keep records, as specified in paragraph
(e) of this section. For a single-component stock, use any one of the
methods specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3) or (5) of this
section. For a mixture of compounds (such as petroleum liquids), use
any one of the methods specified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of
this section.
(1) As obtained from standard reference texts.
(2) In accordance with methods described in chapter 19.2 of the API
Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, ``Evaporative Loss from
Floating Roof Tanks'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265). If
you need the total vapor pressure of a petroleum liquid mixture (e.g.,
crude oil or gasoline), you must test for Reid vapor pressure and
distillation slope, as applicable, to determine the constants A and B
for the vapor pressure equation. If only part of a mixture is regulated
material, you must test to determine the composition of the stored
liquid. Testing is not required if you determine, based on engineering
judgment, that the mixture contains less than 1-percent regulated
material by weight.
(3) As determined by the ``American Society for Testing and
Materials Method D2879-83'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
65.265).
(4) As determined using ``Test Method for Vapor Pressure of
Reactive Organic Compounds in Heavy Crude Oil Using Gas
Chromatography'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265).
(5) Any other method approved by the Administrator in accordance
with Sec. 65.250.
(b) Determine the MTVP for each storage vessel that contains a
regulated material either prior to the required submittal date of your
Notification of Compliance Status or prior to the initial fill with
regulated material, whichever is later.
(c) Determine the MTVP each time the storage vessel is filled with
a different type of material.
(d) Determine the MTVP at least annually if the storage vessel
stores a mixture and it was determined to be subject to Sec. 65.305(a)
the last time the MTVP was determined.
(e) Keep records of each MTVP determination, as specified in Sec.
65.380(b)(2).
Standards and Compliance Requirements for Storage Vessels
Sec. 65.310 What requirements must I meet for an atmospheric storage
vessel equipped with a fixed roof?
You must equip the storage vessel with a fixed roof and operate in
accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) Closure requirements. Each opening in the fixed roof must be
equipped with a cover or other type of closure device.
(b) Operating requirements. (1) Except as specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, the fixed roof must be installed with each
closure device secured in the closed position when the storage vessel
contains regulated material.
(2) You may open closure devices or remove the fixed roof under the
conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A closure device may be opened or the roof may be removed when
needed to provide access for manual operations such as maintenance,
inspection, sampling and cleaning.
(ii) Opening of a spring-loaded conservation vent or similar type
of device that vents to the atmosphere (or allows air to enter the
storage vessel) is allowed to maintain the tank internal operating
pressure within tank design specifications when loading operations or
diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations cause the pressure inside the
storage vessel to migrate beyond the operating pressure range for the
storage vessel.
(c) Monitoring requirements. (1) Except as specified in paragraph
(c)(2)
[[Page 17989]]
or (3) of this section, monitor each potential source of vapor leakage
from the fixed roof and its closure devices for leaks in accordance
with either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. Conduct
monitoring while the storage vessel contains regulated material.
(i) Monitor using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in
accordance with Sec. 65.431(a) and (b). A leak is detected if you
obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 parts per million by
volume. Conduct monitoring within 90 days after the initial fill and at
least annually.
(ii) Monitor in accordance with the protocol for optical gas
imaging, as specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. You may use this
monitoring option only if at least one compound in the emissions can be
detected by the optical gas imaging instrument. A leak is detected if
you observe an image of emissions when using the optical gas imaging
instrument. Conduct monitoring within 90 days after the initial fill
and at least semiannually.
(2) If you determine parts of the roof are unsafe to monitor using
Method 21 of part 60, appendix A-7, because operating personnel would
be exposed to an imminent or potential danger as a consequence of
complying with such monitoring, then the inspection requirements
specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section do not apply and you
must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must prepare and maintain at the plant site written
documentation that identifies all parts of the fixed roof and any
closure devices that are unsafe to monitor and explains why such parts
are unsafe to monitor.
(ii) You must develop and implement a written plan and schedule to
conduct inspections during times when it is safe to do so. The required
inspections must be performed as frequently as practicable, but do not
need to be performed more than annually. Keep a copy of the written
plan and schedule at the plant site, as specified in Sec.
65.380(c)(4).
(iii) As an alternative to paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section, you may monitor the parts of the roof identified in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section by using optical gas imaging, as specified in
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, if the criteria in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) of this section and 40 CFR part 60, appendix K, are met.
(3) No monitoring is required during a calendar year when either of
the conditions in paragraph (c)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section are met.
(i) The storage vessel stores no regulated material at any time
during the calendar year.
(ii) The storage vessel is emptied less than 120 days since the
last inspection and no regulated material is stored in the storage
vessel for the remainder of the year.
(4) Keep records of the date of each inspection, as specified in
Sec. 65.380(c)(1), and keep records of each leak, as specified in
Sec. 65.380(c)(2). Provide notification of each inspection, as
specified in Sec. 65.388(a)(1).
(d) Repair requirements. When a leak is identified during
monitoring required under paragraph (c) of this section, you must
either complete repairs or completely empty the storage vessel within
45 days. If a repair cannot be completed or the vessel cannot be
completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to two extensions of
up to 30 additional days each. Keep records documenting each decision
to use an extension, as specified in Sec. 65.380(c)(3). Not repairing
or emptying the storage vessel within the time frame specified in this
paragraph (d) is a deviation and must be reported in your semiannual
periodic report, as specified in Sec. 65.384(a).
Sec. 65.315 What requirements must I meet for an atmospheric storage
vessel with a floating roof?
You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (g)
of this section.
(a) Design requirements. (1) Fixed roof in combination with
internal floating roof. An internal floating roof (IFR) must be
equipped with one of the seal configurations listed in paragraph
(a)(1)(i), (ii) or (iii) of this section.
(i) A liquid-mounted seal.
(ii) A mechanical shoe seal.
(iii) Two seals mounted one above the other. The lower seal may be
vapor-mounted.
(2) External floating roof. An external floating roof (EFR) must be
equipped with one of the seal configurations listed in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) A liquid-mounted seal and a secondary seal.
(ii) A mechanical shoe seal and a secondary seal. The upper end of
the shoe(s) must extend a minimum of 24 inches above the stored liquid
surface.
(3) Deck fittings. Openings through the deck of the floating roof
must be equipped, as described in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (x) of
this section.
(i) Each opening, except those for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum
breaker vents) and rim space vents, must have its lower edge below the
surface of the stored liquid.
(ii) Each opening, except those for automatic bleeder vents (vacuum
breaker vents), rim space vents, leg sleeves and deck drains, must be
equipped with a deck cover. The deck cover must be equipped with a
gasket between the cover and the deck.
(iii) Each automatic bleeder vent (vacuum breaker vent) and rim
space vent must be equipped with a gasketed lid, pallet, flapper or
other closure device.
(iv) Each opening for a fixed roof support column may be equipped
with a flexible fabric sleeve seal instead of a deck cover.
(v) Each opening in an internal floating roof for a sample well may
be equipped with a slit fabric seal or similar device that covers at
least 90 percent of the opening instead of a deck cover.
(vi) Each opening for a deck drain that empties into the stored
liquid must be equipped with a slit fabric seal or similar device that
covers at least 90 percent of the opening.
(vii) Each cover on access hatches and gauge float wells must be
designed to be bolted or fastened when closed.
(viii) Each opening for an unslotted guidepole must be equipped
with a pole wiper, and each unslotted guidepole must be equipped with
either a gasketed or welded cap on the top of the guidepole.
(ix) Each opening for a slotted guidepole must be equipped with one
of the control device configurations specified in paragraph
(a)(3)(ix)(A), (B), (C) or (D) of this section.
(A) A pole wiper and a pole float. The wiper or seal of the pole
float must be at or above the height of the pole wiper.
(B) A pole wiper and a pole sleeve.
(C) A flexible enclosure device and either a gasketed or welded cap
on the top of the guidepole.
(D) An internal guidepole sleeve, a pole wiper and either a
gasketed or welded cap on the top of the guidepole.
(x) Each opening for a ladder that has at least one slotted leg
must be equipped with one of the control device configurations
specified in paragraph (a)(3)(x)(A), (B) or (C) of this section.
(A) A pole float in the slotted leg and pole wipers for both legs.
The wiper or seal of the pole float must be at or above the height of
the pole wiper.
(B) A ladder sleeve and pole wipers for both legs of the ladder.
(C) A flexible enclosure device and either a gasketed or welded cap
on the top of the slotted leg.
(b) Operational requirements. (1) The floating roof must be
floating on the liquid surface at all times, except that it may be
supported by the leg supports or
[[Page 17990]]
other support devices (e.g., hangers from the fixed roof) under the
circumstances specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section. Any other floating roof landing event is a deviation and must
be recorded, as specified in Sec. 65.380(d)(1), and reported in your
semiannual periodic report, as specified in Sec. 65.384(b).
(i) During the initial fill.
(ii) When necessary for maintenance or inspection, including
refill, provided you also comply with either paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) or
(B) of this section.
(A) If the storage vessel does not need to be completely empty in
order to perform the maintenance or inspection, then refill must begin
no later than 24 hours after the roof is landed. Refill must be
performed in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(B) If the storage vessel must be completely empty in order to
perform the maintenance or inspection, then actions to completely empty
the storage vessel must begin no later than 24 hours after the roof is
landed. Refill may occur at any time after the storage vessel is
completely empty.
(iii) When necessary to support a change in service to an
incompatible liquid, including refill. Actions to completely empty the
storage vessel must begin no later than 24 hours after the roof is
landed. Refill may occur at any time after the storage vessel is
completely empty.
(iv) When necessary to take the storage vessel out of service.
Actions to completely empty the storage vessel must begin no later than
24 hours after the roof is landed.
(v) When the vapors are routed through a closed vent system to a
non-flare control device that reduces regulated material emissions by
at least 90 percent by weight from the time the floating roof is landed
until the floating roof is within 10 percent by volume of being
refloated. You must comply with the requirements in subpart M of this
part for the closed vent system and the applicable non-flare control
device(s). To demonstrate initial compliance with the 90-percent
reduction requirement, you must conduct either a design evaluation, as
specified in Sec. 65.850, or a performance test, as specified in
Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829.
(vi) When non-halogenated vapors are routed through a closed vent
system to a flare that reduces regulated material emissions from the
time the floating roof is landed until the floating roof is within 10
percent by volume of being refloated. You must comply with the
requirements in subpart M of this part for the closed vent system and
the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of this chapter for the flare.
(2) Once you start filling or refilling a storage vessel that has a
landed floating roof, you may not suspend filling or refilling until
the roof is floating (except when the quantity of liquid produced in
one batch is insufficient to float the roof, and the output from
additional batches will be added before any material is withdrawn from
the storage vessel), and you may not withdraw liquid from the storage
vessel while simultaneously filling or refilling.
(3) Each cover over an opening in the floating roof, except for
automatic bleeder vents (vacuum breaker vents) and rim space vents,
must be closed at all times, except when the cover must be open for
access.
(4) Each automatic bleeder vent (vacuum breaker vent) and rim space
vent must be closed at all times, except when required to be open to
relieve excess pressure or vacuum, in accordance with the
manufacturer's design, and during periods when the floating roof is
allowed to be supported by its legs or other support devices.
(5) Each guidepole cap and slotted ladder leg cap must be closed at
all times except when gauging the liquid level or taking liquid
samples.
(c) Inspection requirements. Inspect internal floating roofs in
accordance with Table 2 to this subpart, and inspect external floating
roofs in accordance with Table 3 to this subpart. You must also comply
with paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section, as specified in
Table 2 to this subpart, or Table 3 to this subpart, as applicable. If
a floating roof fails an inspection, comply with the repair
requirements specified in paragraph (d) of this section. Keep records
of the inspections, as specified in Sec. 65.380(d)(2), and report
inspection failures in your annual periodic report, as specified in
Sec. 65.386(a).
(1) Visually inspect for any of the conditions specified in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section at the frequency
specified in Table 2 to this subpart or Table 3 to this subpart, as
applicable. Observing any of these conditions constitutes an inspection
failure. These inspections may be performed entirely from the top side
of the floating roof, as long as there is visual access to all deck
fittings and the top rim seal specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(i) Stored liquid on the floating roof.
(ii) Holes or tears in the primary or secondary seal (if one is
present).
(iii) Floating roof deck, deck fittings or rim seals that are not
functioning as designed (as specified in paragraph (a) of this
section).
(iv) Failure to comply with the operational requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) If you comply with Option 1 or Option 3 in Table 2 to this
subpart or Option 1 in Table 3 to this subpart, inspect each deck
fitting in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. If you
comply with Option 2 in Table 2 to this subpart or Option 3 in Table 3
to this subpart, monitor each deck fitting in accordance with paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) of this section. If you comply with Option 2 in Table 3 to
this subpart, monitor each deck fitting in accordance with paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) Measure the gap between each deck fitting gasket or wiper
(required by paragraph (a) of this section) and any surface that it is
intended to seal. The inspector must attempt to slide a \1/8\ inch
diameter probe between the gasket or wiper and the surface against
which it is intended to seal. Each location where the probe passes
freely (without forcing or binding) between the two surfaces
constitutes a gap and an inspection failure.
(ii) Use Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in accordance
with Sec. 65.431(a) and (b) to monitor all sources of potential vapor
leakage around each fitting. Conduct monitoring only when the roof is
floating on the stored liquid. An instrument reading greater than 500
ppmv constitutes an inspection failure. This option may be used only
for an EFR.
(iii) Monitor the deck fittings using an optical gas imaging
instrument in accordance with the protocol for optical gas imaging, as
specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. You may use this monitoring
option only if at least one compound in the emissions can be detected
by the optical gas imaging instrument. Conduct monitoring only when the
roof is floating on the stored liquid. Any imaged emissions constitutes
an inspection failure.
(3) If you comply with Option 1 in Table 3 to this subpart, conduct
seal gap inspections for an EFR by determining the presence and size of
gaps between the rim seals and the wall of the storage vessel in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) through
(iv) of this section. Any exceedance of the gap requirements specified
in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section constitutes
inspection failure.
(i) Rim seals must be measured for gaps at one or more levels while
the EFR is floating, as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) through
(F) of this section.
[[Page 17991]]
(A) The inspector must hold a \1/8\ inch diameter probe vertically
against the inside of the storage vessel wall, just above the rim seal,
and attempt to slide the probe down between the seal and the vessel
wall. Each location where the probe passes freely (without forcing or
binding against the seal) between the seal and the vessel wall
constitutes a gap.
(B) Determine the length of each gap by inserting the probe into
the gap (vertically) and sliding the probe along the vessel wall in
each direction as far as it will travel freely without binding between
the seal and the vessel wall. The circumferential length along which
the probe can move freely is the gap length.
(C) Determine the maximum width of each gap by inserting probes of
various diameters between the seal and the vessel wall. The smallest
probe diameter should be \1/8\ inch, and larger probes should have
diameters in increments of \1/8\ inch. The diameter of the largest
probe that can be inserted freely anywhere along the length of the gap
is the maximum gap width.
(D) Determine the average width of each gap by averaging the
minimum gap width (\1/8\ inch) and the maximum gap width.
(E) The area of a gap is the product of the gap length and average
gap width.
(F) Determine the ratio of accumulated area of rim seal gaps to
storage vessel diameter by adding the area of each gap, and dividing
the sum by the nominal diameter of the storage vessel. Determine this
ratio separately for primary and secondary rim seals.
(ii) The ratio of seal gap area to vessel diameter for the primary
seal must not exceed 10 square inches per foot of vessel diameter, and
the maximum gap width must not exceed 1.5 inches.
(iii) The ratio of seal gap area to vessel diameter for the
secondary seal must not exceed 1 square inch per foot, and the maximum
gap width must not exceed 0.5 inches, except when you must pull back or
remove the secondary seal to inspect the primary seal.
(iv) If you determine that it is unsafe to perform an EFR
inspection as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, comply
with the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(A) or (B) of this
section.
(A) Perform the inspection no later than 30 days after the
determination that the floating roof is unsafe.
(B) Completely empty the storage vessel no later than 45 days after
determining the floating roof is unsafe. If the vessel cannot be
completely emptied within 45 days, you may utilize up to two extensions
of up to 30 additional days each. Keep records documenting each
decision to use an extension, as specified in Sec. 65.380(d)(3).
(4) If you comply with Option 3 in Table 3 to this subpart, monitor
the circumference of the floating roof when the roof is floating on
stored liquid using an optical gas imaging instrument in accordance
with the procedures specified in the protocol for optical gas imaging
in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. This monitoring option may be used only
if at least one compound emitted from the storage vessel can be
detected by the optical gas imaging instrument. Any imaged emissions
constitutes an inspection failure.
(5) If you comply with Option 2 in Table 3 to this subpart, monitor
the interface between the rim seal and the tank shell and any gaps in
the secondary seal using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in
accordance with Sec. 65.431(a) and (b). Conduct monitoring when the
roof is floating on stored liquid. An instrument reading greater than
500 ppmv constitutes an inspection failure.
(6) If you comply with Option 2 in Table 2 to this subpart, monitor
the circumference of the IFR using an optical gas imaging instrument in
accordance with the protocol for optical gas imaging, as specified in
40 CFR part 60, appendix K. You may use this monitoring option only if
at least one compound in the emissions can be detected by the optical
gas imaging instrument. Conduct monitoring when the roof is floating on
stored liquid. Any imaged emissions constitutes an inspection failure.
(d) Repair requirements. Any condition causing an inspection
failure under paragraph (c) of this section that is observed during an
inspection required by paragraph (c) of this section or that you
observe while conducting other activities on the storage vessel (e.g.,
maintenance or sampling) must be repaired, as specified in paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If the inspection is performed while the storage vessel is
completely empty, you must complete repairs before refilling the
storage vessel with regulated material.
(2) If the inspection is performed while the storage vessel is not
completely empty, you must complete repairs or completely empty the
storage vessel within 45 days. If a repair cannot be completed or the
vessel cannot be completely emptied within 45 days, you may use up to
two extensions of up to 30 additional days each. Keep records
documenting each decision to use an extension, as specified in Sec.
65.380(d)(3). Not repairing or emptying the storage vessel within the
time frame specified in this paragraph (d) is a deviation and must be
reported in your semiannual periodic report, as specified in Sec.
65.384(a).
(e) Alternative means of emission limitation. (1) An alternate
device may be substituted for a device specified in paragraph (a) of
this section if the alternate device has an emission factor less than
or equal to the emission factor for the device specified in paragraph
(a) of this section. Requests for the use of alternate devices must be
submitted, as specified in Sec. 65.388(b).
(2) Tests to determine emission factors for an alternate device
must accurately simulate representative conditions under which the
device and storage vessel will operate, such as wind speed, ambient and
liquid temperatures, pressure or vacuum, and filling and withdrawal
rates, but without creating an unsafe condition. You must include a
copy of the proposed testing protocol in your request.
(f) Floating roof landing monitoring requirements. (1) Each storage
vessel must be equipped with a system that provides a visual or audible
signal when the floating roof (IFR or EFR) is about to be landed on its
legs or other support devices (e.g., hangers from the fixed roof).
(2) Each time a floating roof is landed, even if the alarm did not
activate, estimate the amount of regulated material emitted to the
atmosphere during the time the floating roof is landed. Keep records of
this emissions estimate, as specified in Sec. 65.380(d)(1). Report the
estimated emissions in your annual periodic report, as specified in
Sec. 65.386(b).
(g) Overfill monitoring requirements. (1) Each storage vessel must
be equipped with monitoring equipment that provides a visual or audible
signal when the storage vessel is about to be overfilled.
(2) Each time the storage vessel is overfilled, estimate the amount
of regulated material spilled and the amount emitted to the atmosphere.
Keep records of this emissions estimate, as specified in Sec.
65.380(i). Report the estimated emissions in your annual periodic
report, as specified in Sec. 65.386(c).
Sec. 65.320 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof
atmospheric storage vessel if I use vapor balance?
If you elect to use vapor balancing to control emissions from a
fixed roof storage vessel, you must comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
[[Page 17992]]
(a) Fixed roof requirements. Operate and maintain the fixed roof,
as specified in Sec. 65.310(a) and (b), except that Sec.
65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not apply for the purposes of this section;
monitor the fixed roof, as specified in Sec. 65.310(c); and repair
leaks, as specified in Sec. 65.310(d). Keep records of monitoring and
repair, as specified in Sec. 65.380(e)(1), and report deviations in
your semiannual periodic report, as specified in Sec. Sec. 65.310(d)
and 65.384(a).
(b) Vapor balance requirements. (1) Design requirements. (i) The
vapor balancing system must be designed and operated to route vapors
displaced from loading of the storage vessel to the transport vehicle
or barge from which the storage vessel is filled.
(ii) All vapor connections and lines on the storage vessel must be
equipped with closures that seal upon disconnect.
(2) Testing requirements. (i) Transport vehicles must have a
current certification in accordance with the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) pressure test requirements of 49 CFR part 180 for
cargo tanks and 49 CFR 173.31 for tank cars. Keep records of these
certifications, as specified in Sec. 65.380(e)(2).
(ii) Barges must have been pressure tested for vapor tightness
within the 365-day period prior to being used in a vapor balancing
system to comply with the control requirements in this section.
Pressure testing must be conducted in accordance with paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section, and you must maintain copies
of documentation showing the required testing was conducted, as
specified in Sec. 65.380(e)(3). You must either conduct the test at
your facility or obtain documentation of the test from the barge owner
or operator.
(A) Each barge must be pressurized with dry air or inert gas to no
more than the pressure of the lowest-pressure relief valve setting.
(B) Once the pressure is obtained, the dry air or inert gas source
must be shut off.
(C) At the end of \1/2\ hour, the pressure in the barge and piping
must be measured. The change in pressure must be calculated using
Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.131
Where:
P = Change in pressure, inches of water.
Pi = Pressure in barge when air/gas source is shut off,
inches of water.
Pf = Pressure in barge at the end of \1/2\ hour after
air/gas is shut off, inches of water.
(D) The change in pressure, P, must be compared to the pressure
drop calculated using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.132
Where:
PM = Maximum allowable pressure change, inches of water.
Pi = Pressure in barge when air/gas source is shut off,
pounds per square inch absolute (psia).
L = Maximum permitted loading rate of the barge, barrels per hour
V = Total volume of barge, barrels.
(E) If P is less than or equal to PM, the vessel is vapor tight.
(F) If P is greater than PM, the vessel is not vapor tight and the
source of the leak must be identified and repaired before retesting.
(3) Monitoring requirements. For pieces of equipment in the vapor
balancing system, comply with Sec. 65.325(b) and (d), except as
specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section. Keep
records, as specified in Sec. 65.380(e)(5).
(i) When Sec. 65.325(b) refers to a ``closed vent system,'' it
means a ``vapor balancing system'' for the purposes of this section.
(ii) When subpart M of this part, which is referenced from Sec.
65.325(b), refers to ``bypass lines that divert a vent stream away from
a control device and to the atmosphere,'' it means ``bypass lines that
divert displaced storage vessel emissions to the atmosphere and away
from the transport vehicle or barge from which the storage vessel is
being filled'' for the purposes of this section.
(iii) As an alternative to the otherwise applicable monitoring
requirements specified in subpart J of this part, you may elect to
comply with the alternative monitoring frequencies in Sec. 65.440 for
equipment in a vapor balancing system that convey emissions from a
storage vessel for the purposes of this subpart.
(c) Operating requirements. (1) Liquid must be unloaded only when
the transport vehicle's vapor collection equipment or barge's vapor
collection equipment is connected to the storage vessel's vapor
balancing system.
(2) Each pressure relief device on the storage vessel or on the
transport vehicle or barge must remain closed while the storage vessel
is being filled.
(3) Pressure relief devices on storage vessels must be set to no
less than 2.5 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) at all times to
prevent breathing losses, unless you provide rationale in the
Notification of Compliance Status specified in Sec. 65.382(c)
explaining why a lower value is sufficient to prevent breathing losses
at all times or control breathing losses by another method. Keep
records of the vent settings, as specified in Sec. 65.380(e)(4).
(d) Overfill monitoring requirements. Comply with the monitoring
and alarm requirements and related recordkeeping and reporting
requirements specified in Sec. 65.315(g).
Sec. 65.325 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof
atmospheric storage vessel if I route emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device?
If you elect to control emissions from a fixed roof atmospheric
storage vessel by routing emissions through a closed vent system to a
control device, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)
through (e) of this section.
(a) Fixed roof requirements. Except as specified in paragraph (e)
of this section, operate and maintain the fixed roof, as specified in
Sec. 65.310(a) and (b), except that Sec. 65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not
apply for the purposes of this section; monitor the fixed roof, as
specified in Sec. 65.310(c); and repair leaks, as specified in Sec.
65.310(d). Keep records of monitoring and repair, as specified in Sec.
65.380(f)(1), and report deviations in your semiannual periodic report,
as specified in Sec. Sec. 65.310(d) and 65.384(a).
(b) Closed vent system requirements. Except as specified in
paragraph (e) of this section, for the closed vent system, comply with
the requirements specified in Sec. 65.720(b) through (d) and
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Equipment in the closed vent system is in regulated material
service when it conveys emissions from the storage vessel. For such
equipment, comply with Sec. 65.410(a) or (c) and applicable sections
referenced therein, except that Sec. 65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply
for the purposes of this subpart. When Sec. 65.410(c) refers to ``your
referencing subpart,'' it means ``the subpart that references subpart
I.'' You must conduct the monitoring while the equipment is in
regulated material service.
(2) Comply with Sec. 65.430 for each potential source of emissions
in the closed vent system that is not defined as
[[Page 17993]]
a piece of equipment. Keep identification records, as specified in
Sec. 65.380(f)(5).
(3) Keep records, as specified in Sec. 65.380(f)(2).
(c) Control device requirements. Comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section, as
applicable. Keep records, as specified in Sec. 65.380(f)(3).
(1) A non-flare control device must meet the requirements for the
applicable control device in subpart M of this part; and reduce organic
regulated material emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an
outlet concentration of regulated material less than 20 ppmv. If the
regulated material is a subset of organic compounds (e.g., hazardous
air pollutants (HAP)), you may demonstrate compliance by reducing
emissions to an outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv as total organic
compounds (TOC). You must reduce the hydrogen halide and halogen
emissions from combusted halogenated vent streams, as defined in Sec.
65.295, by at least 99 percent by weight or to an outlet concentration
less than 20 ppmv. The halogenated vent stream determination must be
based on the emission rate at the maximum expected fill rate of the
storage vessel.
(2) A flare must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of this
chapter. You must not use a flare to control halogenated vent streams,
as defined in Sec. 65.295.
(3) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit(s)
specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, you must conduct either
a design evaluation, as specified in Sec. 65.850, or a performance
test, as specified in Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829.
(4) During periods of planned routine maintenance of a control
device, operate the storage vessel in accordance with paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. Keep records, as specified in Sec.
65.380(f)(4).
(i) Do not add material to the storage vessel during periods of
planned routine maintenance.
(ii) Limit periods of planned routine maintenance for each control
device to no more than 360 hours per year (hr/yr).
(d) Overfill monitoring requirements. Comply with the monitoring
and alarm requirements and related recordkeeping and reporting
requirements specified in Sec. 65.315(g).
(e) Alternative requirements. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section do not apply if the fixed roof and closed vent system are
maintained in vacuum service, provided you comply with Sec.
65.410(b)(1) through (3) for fittings on the fixed roof and equipment
in the closed vent system and you keep records, as specified in Sec.
65.380(f)(2).
Sec. 65.330 What requirements must I meet for a fixed roof
atmospheric storage vessel if I route emissions to a fuel gas system?
If you elect to control emissions from a fixed roof storage vessel
by routing emissions to a fuel gas system, you must comply with
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) Fixed roof requirements. Except as specified in paragraph (d)
of this section, operate and maintain the fixed roof, as specified in
Sec. 65.310(a) and (b), except that Sec. 65.310(b)(2)(ii) does not
apply for the purposes of this section; monitor the fixed roof, as
specified in Sec. 65.310(c); and repair leaks, as specified in Sec.
65.310(d). Keep records of monitoring and repair, as specified in Sec.
65.380(g)(1), and report deviations in your semiannual periodic report,
as specified in Sec. Sec. 65.310(d) and 65.384(a).
(b) Fuel gas system requirements. Except as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Comply with the requirements for fuel gas systems as specified
in Sec. 65.732(a), (c), and (d).
(2) Comply with the requirements for equipment leaks, as specified
in subpart J of this part and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Equipment in the fuel gas system is in regulated material
service when it conveys emissions from the storage vessel. For such
equipment, comply with Sec. 65.410(a) or (c) and applicable sections
referenced therein, except that Sec. 65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply
for the purposes of this subpart. When Sec. 65.410(c) refers to ``your
referencing subpart,'' it means ``the subpart that references subpart
I.'' You must conduct the monitoring while the equipment is in
regulated material service.
(ii) Comply with Sec. 65.430 for each potential source of
emissions from the fuel gas system that is not defined as a piece of
equipment (e.g., an access hatch). Keep identification records, as
specified in Sec. 65.380(g)(3).
(3) Keep records of the fuel gas system, as specified in Sec.
65.380(g)(2).
(c) Overfill monitoring requirements. Comply with the monitoring
and alarm requirements and related recordkeeping and reporting
requirements specified in Sec. 65.315(g).
(d) Alternative requirements. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section do not apply if the fixed roof and fuel gas system are
maintained in vacuum service, provided you comply with Sec.
65.410(b)(1) through (3) for fittings on the fixed roof and equipment
in the fuel gas system and you keep records, as specified in Sec.
65.380(g)(2).
Sec. 65.340 What requirements must I meet for a pressure vessel?
If you have a pressure vessel that contains any regulated material,
you must operate and maintain the pressure vessel, as specified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) The pressure vessel must be designed to operate with no
detectable emissions at all times.
(b) All openings in the pressure vessel must be equipped with
closure devices.
(c) Conduct initial and annual performance tests by monitoring in
accordance with either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section to
demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) Monitor each point on the pressure vessel through which
regulated material could potentially be emitted using Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in accordance with the procedures specified
in Sec. 65.431(a) and (b) and paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of
this section.
(i) When Sec. 65.431(a)(5) refers to ``monitoring when the
equipment in regulated material service or in use with any other
detectable material,'' it means ``monitoring when the pressure vessel
contains a regulated material with a concentration representative of
the range of concentrations for the materials expected to be stored in
the pressure vessel'' for the purposes of this section.
(ii) Section 65.431(a)(6) does not apply for the purposes of this
section.
(iii) Each instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv is a deviation.
Comply with paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section each
time you obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv.
(A) Estimate the flow rate and total regulated material emissions
from the defect. Assume the pressure vessel has been emitting for half
of the time since the last performance test, unless other information
supports a different assumption.
(B) Keep records of the performance test and emission estimates, as
specified in Sec. 65.380(h)(1).
(C) Submit information in your semiannual periodic report, as
specified in Sec. 65.384(c).
(2) Monitor each point on the pressure vessel through which
regulated material potentially could be emitted using an optical gas
imaging instrument, as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) Operate and maintain the optical gas imaging instrument in
accordance with the protocol for optical gas imaging
[[Page 17994]]
in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K. The optical gas imaging instrument must
be able to detect at least one compound emitted from the storage
vessel.
(ii) Each image of emissions is a deviation. Comply with paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section each time you detect an image
when using an optical gas imaging instrument.
(A) Estimate emissions, as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of
this section.
(B) Keep records and report information, as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section.
(d) Whenever material regulated by a referencing subpart is in the
pressure vessel, operate the pressure vessel as a closed system that
does not vent to the atmosphere except at those times when purging of
inerts or noncondensables from the pressure vessel is required and the
purge stream is routed through a closed vent system to a control device
in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, as
applicable. Keep records, as specified in Sec. 65.380(h)(2), and
report deviations in your semiannual periodic report, as specified in
Sec. 65.384(c).
(1) For the closed vent system, comply with Sec. 65.325(b).
(2) For a non-flare control device, comply with requirements for
the applicable control device in subpart M of this part, and comply
with paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) A non-flare control device must reduce organic regulated
material emissions by at least 98 percent by weight or to an outlet
concentration of total regulated material less than 20 ppmv. If the
regulated material is a subset of organic compounds (e.g., HAP), you
may demonstrate compliance by reducing emissions to an outlet
concentration less than 20 ppmv as TOC. You must reduce the hydrogen
halide and halogen emissions from combusted halogenated vent streams,
as defined in Sec. 65.295, by at least 99 percent by weight or to an
outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv. The halogenated vent stream
determination must be based on the emission rate at the maximum
expected fill rate of the pressure vessel.
(ii) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit(s)
specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, you must conduct
either a design evaluation, as specified in Sec. 65.850, or a
performance test, as specified in Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829.
(3) For a flare, comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of
this chapter. You must not use a flare to control halogenated vent
streams, as defined in Sec. 65.295.
Standards and Compliance Requirements for Transfer Operations
Sec. 65.360 What requirements must I meet for control of transport
vehicles and transfer operations to load transport vehicles?
For each transfer rack that is used to load transport vehicles with
regulated material, you must comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section. You must also comply with paragraph (c) of this section for
transport vehicles that are loaded with regulated material.
(a) Transfer method. Transfer regulated liquids to transport
vehicles using submerged loading or bottom loading.
(b) Displaced emissions control. For each loading arm that
transfers regulated material at a facility that transfers through all
transfer racks a total of more than 35 million gallons per year (gal/
yr) of liquids with a weighted average MTVP equal to or greater than 4
psia, comply with either paragraph (b)(1), (2) or (3) of this section.
(1) Route displaced emissions from the transport vehicle through a
closed vent system to a control device and comply with paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. Keep records, as specified in
Sec. 65.380(j)(2).
(i) For the closed vent system, comply with the requirements
specified in Sec. 65.720(b) through (d) and paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A)
through (C) of this section.
(A) Determine if a piece of equipment in the closed vent system is
in regulated material service, based on the MTVP of each transferred
material that generates vapor that contacts the equipment. If any such
vapor meets the definition of ``in regulated material service,'' comply
with Sec. 65.410(a) or (c) and applicable sections referenced therein,
except that Sec. 65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply for the purposes of
this subpart. When Sec. 65.410(c) refers to ``your referencing
subpart'' it means ``the subpart that references subpart I.'' If
equipment in the closed vent system contacts regulated material from
transfers, but is not in regulated material service, comply with
requirements in Sec. 65.430, unless you are required to comply with
Sec. 65.429 for other emissions conveyed by the closed vent system.
(B) If equipment in the closed vent system is determined to be in
regulated material service, conduct monitoring and inspections when the
closed vent system is conveying vapor that causes the equipment in the
closed vent system to be in regulated material service (e.g., when
transferring material that generates vapor that meets the threshold for
``in regulated material service''). If equipment in the closed vent
system contacts regulated material, but is not in regulated material
service, conduct inspections when regulated material vapors are flowing
through the closed vent system (e.g., when filling any transport
vehicle that generates vapor that contains regulated material). No
monitoring or inspection is required during monitoring periods when the
closed vent system conveys no regulated material.
(C) Comply with Sec. 65.430 for each potential source of vapor
leakage in the closed vent system that is not defined as a piece of
equipment. Keep identification records, as specified in Sec.
65.380(j)(3).
(ii) For a non-flare control device, comply with the applicable
requirements in subpart M of this part, and comply with paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) A non-flare control device must reduce organic regulated
material emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an outlet
concentration of total organic regulated material less than 20 ppmv. If
the regulated material is a subset of organic compounds (e.g., HAP),
you may demonstrate compliance by reducing emissions to an outlet
concentration less than 20 ppmv as TOC. You must reduce the hydrogen
halide and halogen emissions from combusted halogenated vent streams,
as defined in Sec. 65.295, by at least 99 percent by weight or to an
outlet concentration less than 20 ppmv. The halogenated vent stream
determination must be based on the emission rate at the maximum
expected fill rate of the pressure vessel.
(B) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit
specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, you must conduct
either a design evaluation, as specified in Sec. 65.850, or a
performance test, as specified in Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829.
(iii) For flares, comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.11(b) of
this chapter. You must not use a flare to control halogenated vent
streams, as defined in Sec. 65.295.
(2) Route displaced emissions from the transport vehicle to a fuel
gas system and comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Comply with the requirements for fuel gas systems, as specified
in Sec. 65.732(a), (c) and (d).
(ii) For equipment in the fuel gas system, comply with the
requirements for equipment leaks, as specified in subpart J of this
part, and paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Determine if a piece of equipment in the fuel gas system is in
regulated
[[Page 17995]]
material service, based on the MTVP of each transferred material that
generates vapor that contacts the equipment. If any such vapor meets
the definition of ``in regulated material service,'' comply with Sec.
65.410(a) or (c) and applicable sections referenced therein, except
that Sec. 65.410(a)(2)(ii) does not apply for the purposes of this
subpart. When Sec. 65.410(c) refers to ``your referencing subpart,''
it means ``the subpart that references subpart I.'' If equipment in the
fuel gas system contacts regulated material from transfers, but is not
in regulated material service, comply with requirements specified in
Sec. 65.430, unless you are required to comply with Sec. 65.427 for
other emissions conveyed by the fuel gas system (e.g., process vent
emissions).
(B) For equipment in the fuel gas system that is determined to be
in regulated material service, conduct monitoring and inspections,
while transferring any material that generates vapor that causes the
equipment in the fuel gas system to be in regulated material service.
Alternatively, you may conduct monitoring and inspections when the fuel
gas system is conveying vapors from other emission points that cause
the equipment to be in regulated material service. If equipment in the
fuel gas system contacts regulated material, but is not in regulated
material service, conduct inspections when regulated material vapors
are flowing through the fuel gas system (e.g., when filling any
transport vehicle with liquid that contains regulated material).
(C) Comply with Sec. 65.430 for each potential source of emissions
in the fuel gas system that is not defined as a piece of equipment.
Keep identification records, as specified in Sec. 65.380(j)(3).
(iii) Keep records, as specified in Sec. 65.380(j)(7).
(3) Design and operate a vapor balancing system, as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this section. This option may not
be used if the applicable storage vessel is controlled using a floating
roof. Keep records, as specified in Sec. 65.380(j)(5).
(i) The vapor balancing system must be designed to route vapors
displaced from the loading of regulated liquids into transport vehicles
back to the storage vessel from which the liquid being loaded
originated or to another storage vessel connected to a common header.
(ii) The vapor balancing system must be designed to prevent any
regulated material vapors collected at one transfer rack from passing
to another transfer rack.
(iii) All vapor connections and lines in the vapor collection
equipment and vapor balancing system must be equipped with closures
that seal upon disconnect.
(iv) Each pressure relief device on the transport vehicle and
storage vessel must remain closed while the transport vehicle is being
filled with regulated material.
(v) For pieces of equipment in the vapor balancing system, comply
with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, except that when paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section refers to a ``closed vent system,'' it means
a ``vapor balancing system'' for the purposes of this section.
(c) Transport vehicles. (1) Except when loading transport vehicles
that meet the requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you
must ensure that regulated material liquids are loaded only into
transport vehicles that have a current certification in accordance with
the DOT pressure test requirements in 49 CFR part 180 for cargo tanks
or 49 CFR 173.31 for tank cars. Keep records of these certifications,
as specified in Sec. 65.380(j)(6).
(2) Each transport vehicle that is loaded with regulated material
that has a MTVP greater than 4 psia at a transfer rack that is subject
to this section must pass an annual vapor tightness test conducted
using Method 27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8. Either you or the
owner of the transport vehicle may conduct the test. Conduct the test
using a time period (t) for the pressure and vacuum tests of 5 minutes.
The initial pressure (Pi) for the pressure test must be 460
millimeters (mm) of water, gauge. The initial vacuum (Vi)
for the vacuum test must be 150 mm of water, gauge. The maximum
allowable pressure and vacuum changes ([Delta]p, [Delta]v) for
transport vehicles is 25 mm of water, or less, in 5 minutes. Keep
records of each test, as specified in Sec. 65.380(j)(1).
(3) You must act to assure that your vapor balancing system, closed
vent system or fuel gas system is connected to the transport vehicle's
vapor collection equipment during each loading of a transport vehicle
at the regulated source. Examples of actions to accomplish this include
training drivers in the hookup procedures and posting visible reminder
signs at the transfer racks that load regulated material.
Sec. 65.370 What requirements must I meet for control of transfer
operations to load containers?
For each transfer rack that is used to load containers, you must
comply with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, as applicable.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must
transfer regulated material into containers using either submerged fill
or a fitted opening in the top of the container through which the
regulated material is filled, with subsequent purging of the transfer
line before removing it from the container opening.
(b) Whenever a container that is subject to this paragraph contains
a regulated material, you must install all covers and closure devices
for the container, and secure and maintain each closure device in the
closed position, except when access to the container is necessary, such
as for adding or removing material, sampling or cleaning. If the
container is 55 gallons (gal) or larger, the transferred liquid has a
MTVP greater than 4 psia, and the container is used for onsite storage,
comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Demonstrate initially and at least annually that the container
is vapor tight by testing in accordance with Method 27 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-8. Conduct the test using a time period (t) for the
pressure and vacuum tests of 5 minutes. The initial pressure
(Pi) for the pressure test must be 460 mm of water, gauge.
The initial vacuum (Vi) for the vacuum test must be 150 mm
of water, gauge. The maximum allowable pressure and vacuum changes
([Delta]p, [Delta]v) for all tested containers is 76 mm of water, or
less, in 5 minutes. Keep records of each test, as specified in Sec.
65.380(j)(1).
(2) Monitor annually each potential leak interface on the container
using Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, in accordance with
Sec. 65.431(a) and (b), and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) Section 65.431(a)(6) does not apply for the purposes of this
section.
(ii) When Sec. 65.431(a) and (b) refers to ``equipment,'' it means
``each potential leak interface on the container'' for the purposes of
this section.
(iii) A leak is identified when you obtain an instrument reading
greater than 500 ppmv.
(iv) For each leak, either repair the leak or empty the container
within 15 days after detecting the leak.
(c) As an alternative to complying with paragraph (a) of this
section, you may elect to control displaced vapors generated when
filling the container in accordance with paragraph (c)(1), (2) or (3)
of this section, as applicable.
(1) Design and operate a vapor balancing system to route vapors
displaced from the loading of regulated material into containers
directly (e.g., no intervening tank or containment area, such as a
room) to the storage vessel from which the liquid being loaded
[[Page 17996]]
originated or to another storage vessel connected to a common header.
For equipment in the vapor balancing system, comply with Sec.
65.360(b)(3), except when Sec. 65.360(b)(1)(i), which is referenced
from Sec. 65.360(b)(3), refers to a ``transport vehicle,'' it means a
``container'' for the purposes of this section. Keep records, as
specified in Sec. 65.380(j)(5).
(2) Vent displaced emissions directly through a closed vent system
to a control device in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Comply with Sec. 65.360(b)(1)(i) for the closed vent system,
except that when Sec. 65.360(b)(1)(i) refers to a ``transport
vehicle,'' it means a ``container'' for the purposes of this section.
(ii) Comply with Sec. 65.360(b)(1)(ii) or (iii) for the applicable
control device.
(iii) Keep records, as specified in Sec. 65.380(j)(2).
(3) When filling, locate the containers in an enclosure that is
exhausted through a closed vent system to a control device, as
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Design and operate the enclosure in accordance with the
criteria for a permanent total enclosure, as specified in ``Procedure
T--Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total
Enclosure'' under 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B. The enclosure may have
permanent or temporary openings to allow worker access; passage of
containers through the enclosure by conveyor or other mechanical means;
entry of permanent mechanical or electrical devices; or to direct
airflow into the enclosure. Perform the verification procedure for the
enclosure, as specified in Section 5.0 to ``Procedure T--Criteria for
and Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure''
initially when the enclosure is first installed and, thereafter,
annually. Keep records of these verifications, as specified in Sec.
65.380(j)(4).
(ii) Comply with Sec. 65.360(b)(1)(i) for the closed vent system
and comply with Sec. 65.360(b)(1)(ii) or (iii) for the applicable
control device.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Sec. 65.380 What records must I keep?
(a) Vessel dimensions and storage capacity. For each storage vessel
that is subject to the referencing subpart, keep a record of the
dimensions of the storage vessel and an analysis of the storage
capacity of the storage vessel.
(b) Liquid stored and MTVP. (1) Keep a list of all the types of
liquids stored.
(2) Keep a record of each MTVP determination and the supporting
information used in the determination.
(c) Monitoring and repair records for fixed roofs complying with
Sec. 65.310, Sec. 65.320, Sec. 65.325 or Sec. 65.330. (1) Record
the date of each monitoring required by Sec. 65.310(c).
(2) For each leak detected during monitoring required by Sec.
65.310(c), record the location of the leak, a description of the leak,
the date of detection, a description of actions taken to repair the
defect and the date repair was completed. When using Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, keep a record of the instrument reading.
When using optical gas imaging, keep a record of the video image.
(3) If you elect to use an extension in accordance with Sec.
65.310(d), keep records, as specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Records for a first extension must include a description of the
defect, documentation that alternative storage capacity was unavailable
in the 45-day period after the inspection and a schedule of actions
that you took in an effort to either repair or completely empty the
storage vessel during the extension period.
(ii) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records
documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during
the first extension period and a schedule of the actions you took to
ensure that the control device was repaired or the vessel was
completely emptied by the end of the second extension period.
(iii) Record the date on which the storage vessel was completely
emptied, if applicable.
(4) If applicable, maintain a copy of the written plan required by
Sec. 65.310(c)(2)(ii) for parts of fixed roofs that are unsafe to
monitor.
(d) Records for floating roofs complying with Sec. 65.315. (1)
Floating roof landings. For each floating roof landing, keep the
records specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section,
as required by Sec. 65.315(f)(2).
(i) The date when a floating roof is set on its legs or other
support devices.
(ii) The date when the roof was refloated.
(iii) Whether the process of refloating was continuous (i.e., once
started, filling or refilling was not suspended until the roof was
refloated, except for filling from batch production, as specified in
Sec. 65.315(b)(2)).
(iv) Estimated emissions from the landing event.
(2) Inspection results. Keep records of floating roof inspection
results, as specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section,
as required by Sec. 65.315(c).
(i) If the floating roof passes inspection, keep a record that
includes the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) and (B)
of this section. If the floating roof fails inspection, keep a record
that includes the information specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A)
through (E) of this section.
(A) Identification of the storage vessel that was inspected.
(B) The date of the inspection.
(C) A description of all inspection failures.
(D) A description of all repairs and the dates they were made.
(E) The date the storage vessel was completely emptied, if
applicable.
(ii) Keep records of the data specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A)
through (C) of this section, as applicable for EFR inspections and
monitoring.
(A) EFR seal gap measurements, including the raw data obtained and
any calculations performed, as required by Sec. 65.315(c)(3).
(B) Instrument readings when monitoring is conducted using Method
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(C) A record of the video image when monitoring is conducted using
optical gas imaging.
(3) Documentation of inspection and repair extensions. If you elect
to use an extension in accordance with Sec. 65.315(c)(3)(iv)(B) or
(d)(2), keep records, as specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) Records for a first extension must include an explanation of
why it was unsafe to perform the inspection, documentation that
alternative storage capacity was unavailable during the 45-day period
after determining the floating roof is unsafe to inspect and a schedule
of actions that you took in an effort to completely empty the storage
vessel during the extension period.
(ii) For a second extension, if needed, you must maintain records
documenting that alternative storage capacity was unavailable during
the first extension period and a schedule of actions that you took to
ensure that the vessel was completely emptied by the end of the second
extension period.
(iii) Record the date on which the storage vessel was completely
emptied, if applicable.
(e) Records for fixed roof storage vessels that vapor balance to
comply with Sec. 65.320. (1) Keep records of fixed roof monitoring and
repair, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) For transport vehicles, keep records of DOT certification(s)
required by Sec. 65.320(b)(2)(i).
(3) For barges, keep records of vapor tightness pressure test
documentation
[[Page 17997]]
required by Sec. 65.320(b)(2)(ii). The documentation must include the
information in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (ix) of this section.
(i) Test title: Barge Pressure Test.
(ii) Barge owner and address.
(iii) Barge identification number.
(iv) Testing location.
(v) Test date.
(vi) Tester name and signature.
(vii) Witnessing inspector, if any: Name, signature and
affiliation.
(viii) Initial and final test pressures and the time at the
beginning and end of the test.
(ix) Test results: Actual pressure change in 30 minutes, mm of
water.
(4) Keep records of the pressure relief vent setting that prevents
breathing losses from the storage vessel required by Sec.
65.320(c)(3).
(5) For equipment in the vapor balancing system, keep records, as
required by subpart J of this part.
(f) Records for fixed roof storage vessels vented to a control
device complying with Sec. 65.325. (1) Keep records of fixed roof
monitoring and repair, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) For the closed vent system, keep records, as specified in
subpart J of this part and subpart M of this part.
(3) For a non-flare control device, keep the applicable records
specified in subpart M of this part. For flares, keep records of all
visual emissions observed, periods when a pilot flame is out, and any
periods that the pilot flames are not monitored.
(4) Record the day and time at which planned routine maintenance
periods begin and end, and the type of maintenance performed on the
control device. If you need more than 240 hr/yr, keep a record that
explains why additional time up to 360 hr/yr was needed and describes
how you minimized the amount of additional time needed.
(5) Keep a record identifying each potential source of vapor
leakage in the closed vent system that is not defined as a piece of
equipment, as required by Sec. 65.325(b)(2).
(g) Records for fixed roof storage vessels vented to a fuel gas
system complying with Sec. 65.330. (1) Keep records of fixed roof
monitoring and repair, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) For the fuel gas system, keep records, as specified in subpart
J of this part and subpart M of this part.
(3) Keep a record identifying each potential source of vapor
leakage in the fuel gas system that is not defined as a piece of
equipment, as required by Sec. 65.330(b)(2).
(h) Records for pressure vessels complying with Sec. 65.340. (1)
For each performance test required by Sec. 65.340(c), keep records of
the information in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii).
(i) The date of the test.
(ii) The instrument reading (and background level, if you adjust
for background, as described in Sec. 65.431(a)(7)), if you test using
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(iii) The video image, if you test using optical gas imaging.
(2) Keep records of the information in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through
(iv) of this section when the performance test required by Sec.
65.340(c) detects a defect.
(i) Date each defect was detected.
(ii) Date of the next performance test that shows either the
instrument reading is less than 500 ppmv when using Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, or no image is detected when using an optical
gas imaging instrument.
(iii) Start and end dates of each period after the date in
paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section when the pressure vessel was
completely empty.
(iv) Estimated emissions from each defect.
(3) When complying with Sec. 65.340(d), keep records for the
closed vent system, as specified in subpart J of this part and subpart
M of this part, and for a non-flare control device, keep the applicable
records specified in subpart M of this part. For flares, keep records
of all visual emissions observed, periods when a pilot flame is out,
and any periods that the pilot flames are not monitored.
(i) Records of overfilling. For each storage vessel that is subject
to Sec. 65.305(b), keep records of each date when the storage vessel
is overfilled and estimates of the amount of regulated material spilled
and emitted to the atmosphere, as required by Sec. 65.315(g), Sec.
65.320(d), Sec. 65.325(d), or Sec. 65.330(c).
(j) Records for transfer operations. (1) Keep records of the
information listed in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (ix) of this section
for each transport vehicle and container for which testing using Method
27 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 is required by Sec. 65.360(c)(2) or
Sec. 65.370(b)(1). You must update the documentation file for each
subject transport vehicle and container at least once per year to
reflect current test results, as determined by Method 27 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-8.
(i) Test title: Transport Vehicle or Container Pressure Test--EPA
Reference Method 27.
(ii) Transport vehicle or container owner and address.
(iii) Transport vehicle or container identification number.
(iv) Testing location.
(v) Date of test.
(vi) Tester name and signature.
(vii) Witnessing inspector, if any: Name, signature and
affiliation.
(viii) Initial and final test pressures, initial and final test
vacuums and the time at the beginning and end of the test.
(ix) Test results: Actual pressure and vacuum changes in 5 minutes,
mm of water (average for 2 runs, as required by Method 27 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-8).
(2) If you use a closed vent system and control device, as
specified in Sec. 65.360(b)(1) or Sec. 65.370(c)(2)(ii), keep records
for the closed vent system, as specified in subpart J of this part and
subpart M of this part, and for a non-flare control device, keep the
applicable records specified in subpart M of this part. For flares,
keep records of all visual emissions observed, periods when a pilot
flame is out, and any periods that the pilot flames are not monitored.
(3) Keep a record identifying each potential source of vapor
leakage in the closed vent system or fuel gas system that is not
defined as a piece of equipment, as required by Sec.
65.360(b)(1)(i)(C) or (2)(ii)(C).
(4) For containers filled inside an enclosure, as specified in
Sec. 65.370(c)(3)(i), keep records of the most recent set of
calculations and measurements performed to verify that the enclosure
meets the criteria of a permanent total enclosure, as specified in
``Procedure T--Criteria for and Verification of a Permanent or
Temporary Total Enclosure'' under 40 CFR 52.741, appendix B.
(5) If you use a vapor balancing system, as specified in Sec.
65.360(b)(3) or Sec. 65.370(c)(1), keep records of the date of each
sensory inspection or instrument monitoring, the number of potential
leaks to the atmosphere that you identified and the records required by
subpart J of this part for monitoring conducted in accordance with
Sec. 65.430(b)(2) and the requirements referenced therein.
(6) For transport vehicles, keep records of DOT certification(s)
required by Sec. 65.360(c)(1).
(7) If you route emissions from transport vehicles to a fuel gas
system, as specified in Sec. 65.360(b)(2), keep records as specified
in subpart M of this part.
(k) Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS) Records for
closed vent systems in vacuum service. Keep records of the inspections,
checks and
[[Page 17998]]
performance evaluations required by subpart J of this part for your
CPMS.
Sec. 65.382 What information must I submit in my Notification of
Compliance Status?
You must include the information listed in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section, as applicable, in the Notification of Compliance
Status that you submit according to the procedures in Sec. 65.225.
(a) The identification of each storage vessel in the regulated
source under the referencing subpart, its storage capacity and the
liquid stored in the storage vessel.
(b) The identification of each transfer rack in the regulated
source under the referencing subpart.
(c) If applicable, you must include rationale, pursuant to Sec.
65.320(c)(3), explaining why pressure lower than 2.5 psig is sufficient
to prevent breathing losses from pressure relief devices on storage
vessels.
Sec. 65.384 What information must I submit in my semiannual periodic
report?
Submit the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of
this section, as applicable, in semiannual periodic reports that you
submit, as specified in Sec. 65.225.
(a) If you do not empty or repair leaks before the end of the
second extension period, as required by Sec. 65.310(d) or Sec.
65.315(d)(2), report the date when the storage vessel was emptied or
repaired.
(b) Report the storage vessel identification and the start and end
dates of each floating roof landing that does not meet the criteria
specified in Sec. 65.315(b)(1).
(c) If you obtain an instrument reading greater than 500 ppmv or an
image of a leak when monitoring a pressure vessel in accordance with
Sec. 65.340(c)(1) or (2), submit a copy of the records specified in
Sec. 65.380(h)(2).
(d) If you use a closed vent system and non-flare control device,
as specified in Sec. 65.325, Sec. 65.360(b)(1) or Sec. 65.370(c)(2),
submit information in semiannual reports, as specified in subparts J
and M of this part. For flares, report any instances when visual
emissions occur longer than 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours, a
pilot flame is out, or the pilot flames are not monitored.
(e) If you use a vapor balancing system, as specified in Sec.
65.320, Sec. 65.360(b)(3) or Sec. 65.370(c)(1), submit information in
semiannual reports, as specified in subparts J and M of this part.
(f) If you use a fuel gas system, as specified in Sec. 65.330 or
Sec. 65.360(b)(2), submit information in semiannual reports, as
specified in subparts J and M of this part.
Sec. 65.386 What information must I submit in my annual periodic
report?
You must report the information specified in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section, as applicable, in annual periodic reports that you
submit, as specified in Sec. 65.225.
(a) Inspection results. You must submit a copy of the inspection
record (required by Sec. 65.380(c)(2), (d)(3) and (g)(1)) when an
inspection failure or leak is detected.
(b) Estimated emissions from floating roof landings. Submit a copy
of the estimated emissions record when a floating roof is landed, as
specified in Sec. 65.380(d)(1).
(c) Estimated emissions from overfilling. Submit a copy of the
estimated emissions record when a storage vessel is overfilled, as
specified in Sec. 65.380(i).
Sec. 65.388 What other reports must I submit and when?
(a) Notification of inspection. (1) Except as specified in
paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section, you must notify the
Administrator at least 30 days prior to a storage vessel inspection
required by Sec. 65.310(c) or Sec. 65.315(c). This notification may
be included in your next annual periodic report if the annual periodic
report will be submitted so that it is received by the Administrator at
least 30 days prior to the inspection.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if an
inspection is unplanned and you could not have known about the
inspection 30 days in advance, then you must notify the Administrator
at least 7 days before the inspection. Notification must be made by
telephone immediately, followed by written documentation demonstrating
why the inspection was unplanned. Alternatively, the notification,
including the written documentation, may be made in writing and sent so
that it is received by the Administrator at least 7 days before the
inspection.
(3) A delegated state or local agency may waive the requirement for
notification of storage vessel inspections.
(b) Requests for alternate devices. If you request the use of an
alternate device, as described in Sec. 65.315(e), you must submit an
application in accordance with Sec. 65.260.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 65.390 What definitions apply to this subpart?
All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the
Clean Air Act and subpart H of this part, unless otherwise specified in
the referencing subpart.
List of Tables to Subpart I of Part 65
Table 1 to Subpart I of Part 65--Standards and Compliance Requirements for Storage Vessels and Transfer
Operations
[As required in Sec. Sec. 65.310, 65.315, 65.320, 65.325, 65.330, 65.360 and 65.370, you must comply with
each applicable control requirement for storage vessels and transfer operations specified in the following
table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a(n) . . . You must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Atmospheric storage vessel that stores any regulated a. Comply with Sec. 65.310 and the requirements
material and does not meet criteria specified in item referenced therein; or
2 or item 3 to this table. b. Comply with the requirements in item 2 to this
table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Atmospheric storage vessel >=20,000 gal and <40,000 a. Comply with Sec. 65.315 and the requirements
gal that stores material with a MTVP >=1.9 psia. referenced therein, provided the MTVP of the stored
liquid is less than 76.6 kPa; or
b. Comply with Sec. 65.320 and the requirements
referenced therein; or
c. Comply with Sec. 65.325 and the requirements
referenced therein; or
d. Comply with Sec. 65.330 and the requirements
referenced therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Atmospheric storage vessel >=40,000 gal that stores a. Comply with item 2 to this table.
material with a MTVP >=0.75 psia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17999]]
4. Pressure vessels.................................... a. Comply with Sec. 65.340 and the requirements
referenced therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Transfer operations that involve loading of a. Comply with Sec. 65.360 and the requirements
transport vehicles. referenced therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Transfer operations that involve loading of a. Comply with Sec. 65.370 and the requirements
containers. referenced therein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart I of Part 65--Inspection and Monitoring Requirements and Schedule for Storage Vessels
Equipped With an IFR
[As required in Sec. 65.315(c), you must inspect and monitor IFR, as specified in the following table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the following times .
For each IFR, comply with . . . You must . . . . . Except . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1; or.................. a. From within the i. Before the initial Not applicable.
storage vessel, inspect fill of the storage
the floating roof deck, vessel, and.
deck fittings and rim
seal(s) in accordance
with Sec. 65.315(c)(1)
and (2)(i); and
......................... ii. Each time the (1) If the storage
storage vessel is vessel is out of
completely emptied and service on the date 10
degassed, or before the years after the
date 10 years after the previous inspection,
previous inspection the inspection may be
from within the storage delayed, provided it is
vessel, whichever conducted prior to
occurs first. filling the storage
vessel with regulated
material.
b. From openings in the i. At least annually.... (1) Identification of
fixed roof or from holes or tears in the
within the storage rim seal is required
vessel, visually inspect only for the seal that
the floating roof deck, is visible from the top
deck fittings and rim of the storage vessel.
seal in accordance with
Sec. 65.315(c)(1).
(2) This inspection is
not required in a
calendar year when you
conduct an inspection
in accordance with item
1.a of this table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Option 2; or.................. a. From within the i. Before the initial See item 2.b.i.(1) of
storage vessel, inspect fill of the storage this table.
the floating roof deck, vessel; and.
deck fittings and rim
seal(s) in accordance
with Sec.
65.315(c)(1); and
ii. Each time the (1) If the storage
storage vessel is vessel is out of
completely emptied and service on the date 10
degassed, or before the years after the
date 10 years after the previous inspection,
previous inspection the inspection may be
from within the storage delayed provided it is
vessel, whichever conducted prior to
occurs first. filling the storage
vessel with regulated
material.
b. From openings in the i. Within 90 days after (1) This option may be
fixed roof, monitor each initial fill; and. used only if the
deck fitting in criteria for optical
accordance with Sec. gas imaging in Sec.
65.315(c)(2)(iii); and 65.315(c)(2)(iii) and
40 CFR part 60,
appendix K are met.
ii. At least annually... Not applicable.
c. From openings in the i. Within 90 days after See item 2.b.i.(1) of
fixed roof, monitor the initial fill; and. this table.
circumference of the IFR
in accordance with Sec.
65.315(c)(6).
ii. At least annually... Not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Option 3...................... a. As an alternative to i. Before the initial Not applicable.
Option 1 in this table, fill; and.
for an IFR with two rim
seals, inspect the roof
deck, deck fittings, and
rim seals from within
the storage vessel in
accordance with Sec.
65.315(c)(1) and (2)(i).
ii. Each time the (1) If the storage
storage vessel is vessel is out of
completely emptied and service on the date 5
degassed, or before the years after the
date 5 years after the previous inspection,
previous inspection the inspection may be
from within the storage delayed provided it is
vessel, whichever conducted prior to
occurs first. filling the storage
vessel with regulated
material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18000]]
Table 3 to Subpart I of Part 65--Inspection and Monitoring Requirements and Schedule for Storage Vessels
Equipped with an EFR
[As required in Sec. 65.315(c), you must inspect and monitor EFR, as specified in the following table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the following times .
For each EFR, comply with . . . You must . . . . . Except . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Option 1; or.................. a. Inspect the primary i. Within 90 days after Not applicable.
rim seal, as specified the initial fill of the
in Sec. 65.315(c)(3), storage vessel, and
and
ii. Before the date 5 Not applicable.
years after the
previous primary seal
gap inspection.
b. Inspect the secondary i. Within 90 days after Not applicable.
rim seal, as specified the initial fill of the
in Sec. 65.315(c)(3), storage vessel, and
and
ii. At least annually... Not applicable.
c. Visually inspect the i. At least annually.... (1) Identification of
floating roof deck, deck holes or tears in the
fittings and secondary rim seal is required
seal, as specified in only for the seal that
Sec. 65.315(c)(1); and is visible from the top
of the storage vessel.
d. Inspect the deck i. At least annually.... Not applicable.
fittings, as specified
in Sec.
65.315(c)(2)(i).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Option 2...................... a. Monitor the i. Within 90 days after Not applicable.
circumference of the EFR initial fill; and.
in accordance with Sec.
65.315(c)(5); and
ii. At least annually... Not applicable.
b. Monitor each deck i. Within 90 days after Not applicable.
fitting in accordance initial fill; and.
with Sec.
65.315(c)(2)(ii); and
ii. At least annually... Not applicable.
c. Visually inspect the i. At least annually.... (1) Identification of
floating roof deck, deck holes or tears in the
fittings and secondary rim seal is required
seal in accordance with only for the seal that
Sec. 65.315(c)(1). is visible from the top
of the storage vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Option 3...................... a. Monitor the i. Within 90 days after (1) This option may be
circumference of the EFR initial fill; and. used only if the
in accordance with Sec. criteria for optical
65.315(c)(4); and gas imaging in Sec.
65.315(c)(4) and 40 CFR
part 60, appendix K are
met.
ii. At least annually... Not applicable.
b. Monitor each deck i. Within 90 days after (1) This option may be
fitting in accordance initial fill; and. used only if the
with Sec. criteria for optical
65.315(c)(2)(iii); and gas imaging in Sec.
65.315(c)(2)(iii) and
40 CFR part 60,
appendix K are met.
ii. At least annually... Not applicable.
c. Visually inspect the i. At least annually.... (1) Identification of
floating roof deck, deck holes or tears in the
fittings and secondary rim seal is required
seal in accordance with only for the seal that
Sec. 65.315(c)(1). is visible from the top
of the storage vessel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Add subpart J to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart J--National Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks
What This Subpart Covers
65.400 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.401 Am I subject to this subpart?
65.402 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
65.403 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Emission Limits and Other Standards--General
65.410 What are my compliance options?
65.413 What are the standards and compliance requirements for closed
vent systems, control devices and fuel gas systems used to comply
with this subpart?
65.415 How must I identify equipment?
65.416 How must I designate special equipment?
Equipment Leak Standards
65.420 What are the standards and compliance requirements for valves
in gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service?
65.421 What are the standards and compliance requirements for pumps
in light liquid service?
65.422 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid
service?
65.423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in light liquid
service?
65.424 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
pressure relief devices?
65.425 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
compressors?
65.426 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
sampling connection systems?
65.427 What are the standards and compliance requirements for open-
ended valves and lines?
65.428 What are the standards and compliance requirements for other
equipment that contacts or contains regulated material?
65.429 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems?
Equipment Leak Monitoring and Repair
65.430 What are my sensory monitoring requirements?
65.431 What instrument monitoring methods must I use to detect
leaks?
65.432 What are my leak identification and repair requirements?
[[Page 18001]]
Alternative Equipment Leak Standards
65.440 What is the alternative means of emission limitation for
equipment in batch operations?
Optical Gas Imaging Standards for Detecting Equipment Leaks
65.450 What are the standards and compliance requirements for using
an optical gas imaging instrument to detect leaks?
Notifications, Reports and Records
65.470 What notifications and reports must I submit?
65.475 What are my recordkeeping requirements?
Other Requirements and Information
65.490 What definitions apply to this subpart?
List of Tables in Subpart J of Part 65
Table 1 to Subpart J of Part 65--Instrument Readings That Define a
Leak for Equipment Complying With Sec. 65.430(b)(2)
Table 2 to Subpart J of Part 65--Monitoring Frequency for Equipment
in Batch Operations Complying With Sec. 65.440
Subpart J--National Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 65.400 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart specifies requirements to meet the emission standards
of a referencing subpart for equipment leaks.
Sec. 65.401 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you are an owner or operator who
is subject to a referencing subpart and you have been expressly
directed to comply with this subpart by a referencing subpart.
Sec. 65.402 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
This subpart applies to equipment in process units, closed vent
systems and fuel gas systems that contains or contacts regulated
material and is subject to a referencing subpart. This subpart applies
to valves, pumps, connectors, agitators, pressure relief devices,
compressors, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves and lines,
instrumentation systems and any other equipment, as defined in the
referencing subpart. This subpart also applies to closed-purge and
closed-loop systems used to meet the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 65.403 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
The General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this
subpart, as specified in subpart H of this part.
Emission Limits and Other Standards--General
Sec. 65.410 What are my compliance options?
(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
for each regulated source that is subject to control requirements for
equipment leaks in a referencing subpart, you must comply with
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Identify subject equipment in accordance with Sec. Sec. 65.415
and 65.416.
(2) Comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section or, as applicable, comply with the alternative specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) As applicable, comply with the equipment-specific standards in
Sec. Sec. 65.420 through 65.429 and the related requirements in
Sec. Sec. 65.430 through 65.432.
(ii) As an alternative to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, if
you have equipment in a batch operation, you may elect to comply with
the alternative monitoring frequency requirements in Sec. 65.440.
(3) Comply with the applicable notification, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. Sec. 65.470 and 65.475.
(b) You are not required to comply with the requirements of
Sec. Sec. 65.420 through 65.440 for equipment in vacuum service,
provided that you comply with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) Identify the equipment, as specified in Sec. 65.415(f).
(2) Continuously demonstrate that the equipment remains in vacuum
service, as described in Sec. 65.416(e).
(3) Comply with the applicable recordkeeping requirements in Sec.
65.475(b)(6).
(c) If your referencing subpart specifies that you may comply with
the optical gas imaging requirements in Sec. 65.450 as an alternative
to complying with paragraph (a) of this section, you must comply with
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section if you elect to comply
with the optical gas imaging alternative.
(1) Identify subject equipment in accordance with Sec. 65.415.
(2) Comply with Sec. 65.450 for leak detection and repair.
(3) Comply with the applicable notification, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. Sec. 65.470 and 65.475(e).
Sec. 65.413 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
closed vent systems, control devices and fuel gas systems used to
comply with this subpart?
A closed vent system and non-flare control device or a fuel gas
system used to meet applicable requirements in Sec. Sec. 65.420
through 65.427 must meet the applicable requirements of subpart M of
this part. A flare used to meet applicable requirements in Sec. Sec.
65.420 through 65.427 must meet the applicable requirements in Sec.
63.11(b) of this chapter. You must not use a flare to control
halogenated vent streams, as defined in Sec. 65.295. The non-flare
control device must also meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section.
(a) A non-flare control device must reduce regulated material
emissions by at least 95 percent by weight or to an outlet
concentration less than 20 ppmv.
(b) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must conduct either a
design evaluation or a performance test in accordance with subpart M of
this part.
Sec. 65.415 How must I identify equipment?
You must identify equipment subject to this subpart, as described
in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. Identification of the
equipment does not require physical tagging of the equipment. For
example, the equipment may be identified on a plant site plan, in log
entries, by designation of process unit boundaries, by some form of
weatherproof identification or by other appropriate methods.
(a) Connectors. Except for inaccessible, ceramic or ceramic-lined
connectors meeting the provision of Sec. 65.422(d)(3) and connectors
in instrumentation systems identified, pursuant to paragraph (d) of
this section, identify the connectors subject to the requirements of
this subpart. You need not individually identify each connector if you
identify all connectors in a designated area or length of pipe subject
to the provisions of this subpart as a group and you indicate the
number of connectors subject. The identification of connectors must be
complete no later than either the compliance date, as specified in your
referencing subpart, or before completion of the initial round of
monitoring required by Sec. 65.422(a)(2), whichever is later.
(b) Pressure relief devices. Identify the pressure relief devices
in gas or vapor service that vent to the atmosphere under the
provisions of Sec. 65.424(a) and the pressure relief devices in gas or
vapor service routed through a closed
[[Page 18002]]
vent system to a control device under the provisions of Sec.
65.424(d).
(c) Instrumentation systems. Identify instrumentation systems
subject to the provisions of Sec. 65.430(a). You do not need to
identify individual valves, pumps, connectors or other pieces of
equipment within an instrumentation system.
(d) Equipment in heavy liquid service. Identify the equipment in
heavy liquid service, under the provisions of Sec. 65.430(c).
(e) Equipment in service less than 300 hours per calendar year.
Identify, either by list, location (area or group) or other method,
equipment in regulated material service less than 300 hours per
calendar year within a process unit subject to the provisions of this
subpart.
(f) Equipment in vacuum service. Identify, either by list, location
(area or group) or other method, equipment in vacuum service within a
process unit subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(g) Other equipment. Identify any other equipment subject to any of
the provisions in Sec. 65.410.
Sec. 65.416 How do I designate special equipment?
(a) Equipment that is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor. (1)
Designation and criteria for unsafe-to-monitor. You may designate the
equipment listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) though (iv) of this section as
unsafe-to-monitor if you determine that monitoring personnel would be
exposed to an immediate danger as a consequence of complying with the
monitoring requirements of this subpart. Examples of unsafe-to-monitor
equipment include, but are not limited to, equipment under extreme
pressure or heat, equipment that you cannot access without the use of a
motorized man-lift basket in areas where an ignition potential exists
or equipment in near proximity to hazards such as electrical lines.
(i) Valves complying with Sec. 65.420 or Sec. 65.440.
(ii) Pumps complying with Sec. 65.421 or Sec. 65.440.
(iii) Connectors complying with Sec. 65.422 or Sec. 65.440.
(iv) Agitators complying with Sec. 65.423 or Sec. 65.440.
(2) Designation and criteria for difficult-to-monitor. You may
designate the equipment listed in (a)(2)(i) though (iv) as difficult-
to-monitor if you determine that the equipment cannot be monitored
without elevating the monitoring personnel more than 7 feet above a
support surface or it is not accessible in a safe manner when it is in
regulated material service.
(i) Valves complying with Sec. 65.420 or Sec. 65.440. In a new
source, the number of valves you designate as difficult-to-monitor must
be less than 3 percent of the total number of valves in that new
source, unless all of the difficult-to-monitor valves in that source
are low leak technology, as described in Sec. 65.432(e)(3).
(ii) Pumps complying with Sec. 65.421 or Sec. 65.440.
(iii) Connectors complying with Sec. 65.422 or Sec. 65.440.
(iv) Agitators complying with Sec. 65.423 or Sec. 65.440.
(3) Identification of unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor equipment.
You must record the identity of equipment designated as unsafe-to-
monitor according to the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section
and record the identity of equipment designated as difficult-to-monitor
according to the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For
both types of equipment, you must also record the planned schedule for
monitoring this equipment and an explanation why the equipment is
unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor, as specified in Sec.
65.475(b)(2)(ii).
(4) Written plan requirements. For equipment designated as unsafe-
to-monitor or difficult-to-monitor, you must have a written plan that
meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section,
as applicable. You must keep the plan onsite as long as the equipment
is designated unsafe-to-monitor or difficult-to-monitor.
(i) For equipment designated as unsafe-to-monitor according to the
provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must have a written
plan that requires monitoring of the equipment as frequently as
practical during safe-to-monitor times, but not more frequently than
the periodic monitoring schedule otherwise applicable, and repair of
the equipment according to the procedures in Sec. 65.432 if a leak is
detected. If applicable, your written plan must also address how you
will address any indications of liquids dripping observed during a
weekly visual inspection.
(ii) For equipment designated as difficult-to-monitor according to
the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you must have a
written plan that requires monitoring of the equipment at least once
per calendar year and repair of the equipment according to the
procedures in Sec. 65.432 if a leak is detected. If applicable, your
written plan must also address how you will address any indications of
liquids dripping observed during a weekly visual inspection.
(b) Inaccessible connectors. You may designate a connector as an
inaccessible connector if it meets any of the provisions specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable.
(1) The connector is buried.
(2) The connector is insulated in a manner that prevents access to
the connector by a monitor probe.
(3) The connector is obstructed by equipment or piping that
prevents access to the connector by a monitor probe.
(c) Compressors operating with an instrument reading of less than
500 parts per million (ppm) above background. Identify the compressors
that you elect to designate as operating with instrument reading of
less than 500 parts per million (ppm) above background under the
provisions of Sec. 65.425(b).
(d) Pressure relief devices (PRD) in regulated material service
that vent to atmosphere. If your referencing subpart specifies that
releases to the atmosphere from a pressure relief device (PRD) is not
allowed, identify all PRD in regulated material service, the process
components served by the PRD and whether the PRD vent to atmosphere or
through a closed vent system to a control device. This identification
may be used to meet the requirements of Sec. 65.415(b).
(e) Equipment in vacuum service. For equipment in vacuum service
that contains or contacts regulated material, you must demonstrate that
the equipment is operated and maintained in vacuum service, as
described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) In vacuum service alarm. You must install a continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to measure pressure and an alarm
system that will alert an operator immediately and automatically when
the pressure is such that the equipment no longer meets the definition
of in vacuum service. The alarm must be located such that the alert is
detected and recognized easily by an operator. For the CPMS, you must
check for obstructions (e.g., pressure tap pluggage) at least once each
process operating day. You must conduct a performance evaluation
annually, a check of all mechanical connections for leakage monthly and
a visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation and
galvanic corrosion every 3 months.
(2) In vacuum service alarm procedures. If the alarm is triggered
for equipment operating in vacuum service, as specified in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section, you must immediately initiate procedures to get
the equipment back into vacuum service, or you may chose to comply with
the requirements of Sec. 65.410(a)(2).
[[Page 18003]]
(3) In vacuum service alarm records. You must maintain records, as
specified in Sec. 65.475(b)(6).
Equipment Leak Standards
Sec. 65.420 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light liquid service?
Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section for valves in gas and vapor service and valves in light
liquid service.
(a) Instrument monitoring and leak detection. You must conduct
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec. 65.431 and paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Instrument reading that defines a leak. The instrument reading
that defines a leak is 500 ppm or greater.
(2) Monitoring frequency. Except as specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(vi) of this section, you must monitor valves for leaks monthly
for the first 2 months after initial startup. After the first 2 months
following initial startup, you must monitor valves for leaks at the
frequency specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) of this
section. You must also keep a record of the start date and end date of
each monitoring period under this section for each process unit, as
specified in Sec. 65.475(c)(1)(i).
(i) At process units with at least 2-percent leaking valves,
calculated according to paragraph (b) of this section, you must monitor
each valve according to either paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this
section.
(A) Monitor each valve monthly.
(B) If the summed number of valves found to be leaking (i.e.,
``VL'' in Equation 2 in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section) over the last two monitoring periods is three or less, you may
elect to monitor each valve quarterly.
(ii) At process units with less than 2-percent leaking valves,
calculated as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, you must
monitor each valve quarterly, except as provided in paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii) through (v) of this section.
(iii) At process units with less than 1-percent leaking valves, you
may elect to monitor each valve semiannually.
(iv) At process units with less than 0.5-percent leaking valves,
you may elect to monitor each valve annually.
(v) At process units with less than 0.25 percent leaking valves,
you may elect to monitor each valve biennially.
(vi) Monitoring data generated before the regulated source became
subject to the referencing subpart and meeting the criteria of either
Sec. 65.431(a)(1) through (5), or Sec. 65.431(a)(6), may be used to
qualify initially for less frequent monitoring under paragraphs
(a)(2)(ii) through (v) of this section.
(3) Valve subgrouping. For a process unit or a group of process
units to which this subpart applies, you may choose to subdivide the
valves in the applicable process unit or group of process units and
apply the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this section to each
subgroup. If you elect to subdivide the valves in the applicable
process unit or group of process units, then the provisions of
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section apply.
(i) The overall performance of total valves in the applicable
process unit or group of process units to be subdivided must be less
than 2-percent leaking valves, as detected according to paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section and, as calculated according to
paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) The initial assignment or subsequent reassignment of valves to
subgroups shall be governed by the provisions of paragraphs
(a)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) You must determine which valves are assigned to each subgroup.
Valves with less than 1 year of monitoring data or valves not monitored
within the last 12 months must be placed initially into the most
frequently monitored subgroup until at least 1 year of monitoring data
have been obtained.
(B) Any valve or group of valves can be reassigned from a less
frequently monitored subgroup to a more frequently monitored subgroup
provided that you monitored the valves to be reassigned during the most
recent monitoring period for the less frequently monitored subgroup.
The monitoring results must be included with that less frequently
monitored subgroup's associated percent leaking valves calculation for
that monitoring event.
(C) Any valve or group of valves can be reassigned from a more
frequently monitored subgroup to a less frequently monitored subgroup
provided that the valves to be reassigned have not leaked for the
period of the less frequently monitored subgroup (e.g., for the last 12
months, if the valve or group of valves is to be reassigned to a
subgroup being monitored annually). Non-repairable valves may not be
reassigned to a less frequently monitored subgroup.
(iii) Every 6 months, you must determine if the overall performance
of total valves in the applicable process unit or group of process
units is less than 2-percent leaking valves and so indicate the
performance in the next periodic report. You must calculate the overall
performance of total valves in the applicable process unit or group of
process units as a weighted average of the percent leaking valves of
each subgroup according to Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.133
Where:
%VLO = Overall performance of total valves in the
applicable process unit or group of process units.
%VLi = Percent leaking valves in subgroup i, most recent
value calculated according to the procedures in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2) of this section.
Vi = Number of valves in subgroup i.
n = Number of subgroups.
(iv) If the overall performance of total valves in the applicable
process unit or group of process units, determined according to
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, is 2-percent leaking valves or
greater, you may no longer subgroup and must revert to the program
required in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section for that
applicable process unit or group of process units. You can again elect
to comply with the valve subgrouping procedures of paragraph (a)(3) of
this section if future overall performance of total valves in the
process unit or group of process units is again less than 2 percent.
(v) You must maintain the records specified in Sec.
65.475(c)(1)(ii).
(vi) To determine the monitoring frequency for each subgroup, use
the
[[Page 18004]]
calculation procedures of paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(vii) Except for the overall performance calculations required by
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (iii) of this section, each subgroup must be
treated as if it were a process unit for the purposes of applying the
provisions of this section.
(b) Percent leaking valves calculation. You must calculate the
percent leaking valves in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) Calculation basis and procedures. (i) You must decide no later
than the compliance date specified in the referencing subpart or upon
revision of an operating permit whether to calculate percent leaking
valves on a process unit or group of process units basis. Once you have
decided, all subsequent percentage calculations must be made on the
same basis, and this also must be the basis used for comparison with
the subgrouping criteria specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section.
(ii) Calculate the percent leaking valves for each monitoring
period for each process unit or valve subgroup, as provided in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.134
Where:
%VL = Percent leaking valves.
VL = Number of valves found leaking, as determined
through periodic monitoring, as required in paragraph (a) of this
section, including those valves found leaking, pursuant to
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section and excluding non-
repairable valves, as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
VT = The total number of valves monitored.
(2) Calculation for monitoring frequency. When determining the next
monitoring frequency for each process unit or valve subgroup currently
subject to monthly, quarterly or semiannual monitoring frequencies, the
percent leaking valves shall be the arithmetic average of the percent
leaking valves from the last two monitoring periods. When determining
the next monitoring frequency for each process unit or valve subgroup
currently subject to annual or biennial monitoring frequencies, the
percent leaking valves shall be the arithmetic average of the percent
leaking valves from the last three monitoring periods.
(3) Non-repairable valves. You must include non-repairable valves
in the calculation of percent leaking valves, as specified in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must include a non-repairable valve in the calculation of
percent leaking valves the first time the valve is identified as
leaking and non-repairable.
(ii) You may exclude a number of non-repairable valves (identified
and included in the percent leaking valves calculation in a previous
period, as required in paragraph (b)(3)(i)) up to a maximum of 1
percent of the total number of valves in regulated material service at
a process unit. If the number of non-repairable valves exceeds 1
percent of the total number of valves in regulated material service at
a process unit, you must include the number of non-repairable valves
exceeding 1 percent of the total number of valves in regulated material
service in the calculation of percent leaking valves.
(c) Leak repair. (1) If a leak is determined, pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section, then you must repair the leak using the procedures
in Sec. 65.432, as applicable.
(2) After a leak has been repaired, you must monitor the valve at
least once within the first 3 months after its repair. The monitoring
required by this paragraph is in addition to the monitoring required to
satisfy the definitions of repair and first attempt at repair.
(i) You must conduct monitoring, as specified in Sec. 65.431(a)
and determine whether the valve has resumed leaking, as specified in
Sec. 65.431(b).
(ii) If the timing of the monitoring required by paragraph (a) of
this section coincides with the timing of the monitoring specified in
this paragraph, you may use the monitoring required by paragraph (a) of
this section to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.
Alternatively, you may perform other monitoring to satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph, regardless of whether the timing of the
monitoring period for periodic monitoring coincides with the time
specified in this paragraph.
(iii) If a leak is detected by monitoring that is conducted,
pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must follow the
provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section to
determine whether that valve must be counted as a leaking valve for
purposes of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(A) If you elected to use periodic monitoring required by paragraph
(a) of this section to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of
this section, then you must count the valve as a leaking valve.
(B) If you elected to use other monitoring, prior to the periodic
monitoring required by paragraph (a) of this section, to satisfy the
requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, then you must count
the valve as a leaking valve unless it is repaired and shown by
periodic monitoring not to be leaking.
(d) Special provisions for valves. (1) Fewer than 250 valves. Any
valve located at a plant site with fewer than 250 valves in regulated
material service is exempt from the requirements for monthly monitoring
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. Instead, you must
monitor each valve in regulated material service for leaks quarterly or
comply with paragraph (a)(2)(iii), (iv) or (v) of this section, except
as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(2) No stem or packing gland. Any valve that is designed with a
valve mechanism that is not connected to a device that penetrates the
valve housing (e.g., a check valve) is exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. You must instead conduct
sensory monitoring according to Sec. 65.430.
(3) Unsafe-to-monitor valves. Any valve that you designate, in
accordance with Sec. 65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor valve is
exempt from paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. You must
monitor and repair the valve according to the written plan specified in
Sec. 65.416(a)(4)(i).
(4) Difficult-to-monitor valves. Any valve that you designate, in
accordance with Sec. 65.416(a)(2) as a difficult-to-monitor valve is
exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section. You must monitor and repair the valve according to the written
plan specified in Sec. 65.416(a)(4)(ii).
Sec. 65.421 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
pumps in light liquid service?
Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section for pumps in light liquid service.
(a) Instrument monitoring and leak detection. You must conduct
instrument
[[Page 18005]]
monitoring, as specified in Sec. 65.431 and paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)
of this section.
(1) Instrument reading that defines a leak. The instrument reading
that defines a leak is specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) 5,000 ppm or greater for pumps handling polymerizing monomers.
(ii) 2,000 ppm or greater for all other pumps.
(2) Monitoring frequency. You must monitor the pumps monthly to
detect leaks. For a pump that begins operation after the initial
startup date for the process unit, monitor within 30 days after the end
of the pump startup period, unless the pump is replacing a leaking pump
or if the pump meets any of the specifications in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(b) Leak repair. If a leak is detected, pursuant to paragraph (a)
of this section, then you must repair the leak using the procedures in
Sec. 65.432, as applicable.
(c) Visual inspection. (1) You must check each pump by visual
inspection each calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seal.
(2) If there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal
at the time of the weekly inspection, you must follow the procedure
specified in either paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) (if applicable) of this
section prior to the next required inspection, except as specified in
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) Before the next weekly inspection, you must repair the pump
seal, as defined in Sec. 65.295 for indications of liquids dripping.
(ii) You must monitor the pump, as specified in Sec. 65.431(a).
(A) If the instrument reading indicates a leak, as specified in
Sec. 65.431(b) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a leak is
detected, and you must repair it using the procedures in Sec. 65.432.
(B) If the instrument reading does not indicate a leak, as
specified in Sec. 65.431(b) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section, then
a leak is not detected and no repair is required.
(iii) If you observed liquids dripping during the last weekly
inspection and the characteristics of the liquids dripping have not
changed since that last weekly inspection (e.g., frequency of drips,
different color, different odor), then you are not required to comply
with paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section prior to the next
weekly inspection.
(3) You must document each inspection, as specified in Sec.
65.475(c)(2)(i). If you comply with paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this
section, the record must include a description of the characteristics
of the liquids dripping.
(d) Special provisions for pumps.
(1) Dual mechanical seal pumps. Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a barrier fluid system is exempt
from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, provided you
meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (viii)
of this section.
(i) Each dual mechanical seal system meets the requirements
specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B) or (C) of this section.
(A) The seal system is operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than the pump stuffing box
pressure.
(B) The seal system is equipped with a barrier fluid degassing
reservoir that is connected by a closed vent system to a control device
or is routed to a fuel gas system. The closed vent system and control
device or the fuel gas system must meet Sec. 65.413.
(C) The seal system is equipped with a closed-loop system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process stream.
(ii) The barrier fluid is not in light liquid service.
(iii) Each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that will
detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system or both.
(iv) Unless the pump is located within the boundary of an unmanned
plant site, each sensor described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this
section is observed daily or is equipped with an alarm.
(v) Each pump is checked by visual inspection each calendar week
for indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal. You must
document each inspection, as specified in Sec. 65.475(c)(2)(ii). If
there are indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal at the
time of the weekly inspection, you must follow the procedure specified
in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) or (B) of this section prior to the next
required inspection.
(A) Before the next weekly inspection, you must repair the pump
seal, as defined in Sec. 65.295 for indications of liquids dripping.
(B) You must monitor the pump, as specified in Sec. 65.431(a) and
determine if there is a leak of regulated material in the barrier
fluid, as specified in Sec. 65.431(b). If an instrument reading of
2,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is detected.
(vi) You must determine, based on design considerations and
operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency
of drips and to the sensor that indicate failure of the seal system,
the barrier fluid system or both. You must keep records of the design
criteria, as specified in Sec. 65.475(c)(2)(iii).
(vii) If indications of liquids dripping from the pump seal exceed
the criteria established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this section, or
if, based on the criteria established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this
section, the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system or both, a leak is detected.
(viii) When you detect a leak, pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B)
or (d)(1)(vii) of this section, you must repair it, as specified in
Sec. 65.432.
(2) No external shaft. Any pump that is designed with no externally
actuated shaft penetrating the pump housing is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) Unmanned plant site. Any pump that is located within the
boundary of an unmanned plant site is exempt from the weekly visual
inspection requirement of paragraphs (c) and (d)(1)(v) of this section,
and the daily requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section,
provided that each pump is visually inspected as often as practical and
at least monthly.
(4) Unsafe-to-monitor pumps. Any pump that you designate, in
accordance with Sec. 65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor pump, is
exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the pump according to the
written plan specified in Sec. 65.416(a)(4)(i).
(5) Difficult-to-monitor pumps. Any pump that you designate, in
accordance with Sec. 65.416(a)(2), as a difficult-to-monitor pump is
exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the pump according to the
written plan specified in Sec. 65.416(a)(4)(ii).
Sec. 65.422 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid
service?
If required by your referencing subpart, you must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section
for connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light liquid
service except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(a) Instrument monitoring and leak detection. You must conduct
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec. 65.431 and paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Instrument reading that defines a leak. The instrument reading
that defines a leak is 500 ppm or greater.
(2) Initial monitoring. You must monitor all connectors in the
process unit initially for leaks by the later of either 12 months after
the compliance
[[Page 18006]]
date specified in a referencing subpart or 12 months after initial
startup. If all connectors in the process unit have been monitored for
leaks, meeting the criteria of either Sec. 65.431(a)(1) through (5) or
Sec. 65.431(a)(6) prior to the compliance date specified in the
referencing subpart, no initial monitoring is required, provided either
no process changes have been made since the monitoring or you can show
that the results of the monitoring, with or without adjustments,
reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. If required to
monitor because of a process change, you are required to monitor only
those connectors involved in the process change.
(3) Monitoring frequency. After the initial monitoring (or
monitoring conducted before the regulated source became subject to the
referencing subpart) required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you
must monitor connectors for leaks at the frequency specified in
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section, depending on the
result of the percent-leaking-connectors calculation specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. You must also keep a record of the start
date and end date of each monitoring period under this section for each
process unit, as specified in Sec. 65.475(c)(3)(i).
(i) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was
greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, then you must monitor annually.
(ii) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was
greater than or equal to 0.25 percent, but less than 0.5 percent, then
monitor within 4 years. You are not required to monitor all connectors
at the same time in the 4-year period, but you must separate monitoring
of an individual connector by at least 2 years.
(iii) If the percent leaking connectors in the process unit was
less than 0.25 percent, then monitor, as provided in paragraph
(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and either paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B) or
(C) of this section, as appropriate.
(A) You must monitor at least 50 percent of the connectors within 4
years of the start of the monitoring period.
(B) If the percent-leaking-connectors calculated from the
monitoring results in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section is
greater than or equal to 0.35 percent of the monitored connectors, you
must monitor all connectors that have not yet been monitored during
that monitoring period as soon as practical, but within the next 6
months. At the conclusion of monitoring, a new monitoring period shall
be started, pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, based on the
percent leaking connectors of the total monitored connectors.
(C) If the percent leaking connectors calculated from the
monitoring results in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section is less
than 0.35 percent of the monitored connectors, you must monitor all
connectors that have not yet been monitored within 8 years of the start
of the monitoring period.
(b) Percent leaking connectors calculation. You must calculate the
percent leaking connectors using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.135
Where:
%CL = Percent leaking connectors.
CL = Number of connectors found leaking during the
monitoring period, as determined through periodic monitoring
required in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section.
CT = Total number of connectors monitored.
(c) Leak repair. (1) If a leak is determined, pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section, then you must repair the leak using the procedures
in Sec. 65.432, as applicable.
(2) After a leak has been repaired, you must monitor the connector,
as specified in Sec. 65.431(a), once within the first 90 days after
its repair to confirm that it is not leaking. The monitoring required
by this paragraph is in addition to the monitoring required to satisfy
the definitions of repair and first attempt at repair.
(d) Special provisions for connectors. (1) Unsafe-to-monitor
connectors. Any connector that you designate, in accordance with Sec.
65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-to-monitor connector is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. You must
monitor and repair the connector according to the written plan
specified in Sec. 65.416(a)(4)(i).
(2) Difficult-to-monitor connectors. Any connector that you
designate, in accordance with Sec. 65.416(a)(2), as a difficult-to-
monitor connector is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the
connector according to the written plan specified in Sec.
65.416(a)(4)(ii).
(3) Inaccessible, ceramic or ceramic-lined connectors. (i) Any
connector that meets the provisions of paragraph (d)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of
this section is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section and from the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. Sec. 65.470 and 65.475.
(A) Any connector you designate, in accordance with Sec.
65.416(b), as an inaccessible connector.
(B) Any connector that is ceramic or ceramic-lined (e.g.,
porcelain, glass or glass-lined).
(ii) If you observe indications of a potential leak from any
connector identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section by visual,
audible, olfactory or other means, you must eliminate the visual,
audible, olfactory or other indications of a potential leak to the
atmosphere as soon as practical, but no later than the end of the next
process unit shutdown or 5 years after detection, whichever is sooner.
Sec. 65.423 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in light liquid
service?
Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, you must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of
this section for agitators in gas and vapor service and agitators in
light liquid service.
(a) Instrument monitoring and leak detection. You must conduct
instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec. 65.431 and paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Instrument reading that defines a leak. The instrument reading
that defines a leak is 10,000 ppm or greater.
(2) Monitoring frequency. You must monitor each agitator seal
monthly to detect leaks.
(b) Leak repair. If a leak is detected, then you must repair the
leak using the procedures in Sec. 65.432, as applicable.
(c) Visual inspection. You must check each agitator seal by visual
inspection each calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from
the agitator seal. You must document each inspection, as specified in
Sec. 65.475(c)(4)(i). If there are indications of liquids dripping
from the agitator seal at the time of the weekly inspection, you must
follow the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this
section prior to the next required inspection.
[[Page 18007]]
(1) Before the next weekly inspection, you must repair the agitator
seal, as defined in Sec. 65.295 for indications of liquids dripping.
(2) You must monitor the agitator seal, as specified in Sec.
65.431(a). If an instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is
measured, as specified in Sec. 65.431(b), a leak is detected, and you
must repair it according to paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Special provisions for agitators. (1) Dual mechanical seal
agitators. Each agitator equipped with a dual mechanical seal system
that includes a barrier fluid system is exempt from the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section, provided you meet the requirements
specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Each dual mechanical seal system meets the requirements
specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), (B) or (C) of this section.
(A) The seal system is operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is, at all times greater than the agitator stuffing box
pressure.
(B) The seal system is equipped with a barrier fluid degassing
reservoir that is connected by a closed vent system to a control device
or is routed to a fuel gas system. The closed vent system and control
device or the fuel gas system must meet Sec. 65.413.
(C) The seal system is equipped with a closed-loop system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process stream.
(ii) The barrier fluid is not in light liquid service.
(iii) Each barrier fluid system is equipped with a sensor that will
detect failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system or both.
(iv) Unless the agitator seal is located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site, each sensor described in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of
this section is observed daily or is equipped with an alarm.
(v) Each agitator seal is checked by visual inspection each
calendar week for indications of liquids dripping from the agitator
seal. You must document each inspection, as specified in Sec.
65.475(c)(4)(ii). If there are indications of liquids dripping from the
agitator seal at the time of the weekly inspection, you must follow the
procedure specified in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) or (B) of this section
prior to the next required inspection.
(A) Before the next weekly inspection, you must repair the agitator
seal, as defined in Sec. 65.295 for indications of liquids dripping.
(B) You must monitor the agitator seal, as specified in Sec.
65.431(a) and determine if there is a leak of regulated material in the
barrier fluid, as specified in Sec. 65.431(b). If an instrument
reading of 10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a leak is detected.
(vi) You must determine, based on design considerations and
operating experience, criteria applicable to the presence and frequency
of drips and to the sensor that indicate failure of the seal system,
the barrier fluid system or both. You must keep records of the design
criteria, as specified in Sec. 65.475(c)(4)(iii).
(vii) If indications of liquids dripping from the agitator seal
exceed the criteria established in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this
section, or if, based on the criteria established in paragraph
(d)(1)(vi) of this section, the sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system or both, a leak is detected.
(viii) When you detect a leak, pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B)
or (d)(1)(vii) of this section, you must repair it, as specified in
Sec. 65.432.
(2) No external shaft. Any agitator that is designed with no
externally actuated shaft penetrating the agitator housing is exempt
from paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) Unmanned plant site. Any agitator that is located within the
boundary of an unmanned plant site is exempt from the weekly visual
inspection requirement of paragraphs (c) and (d)(1)(v) of this section,
and the daily requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section,
provided that each agitator is visually inspected as often as practical
and at least monthly.
(4) Equipment obstructions. Any agitator seal that is obstructed by
equipment or piping that prevents access to the agitator by a monitor
probe is exempt from the monitoring requirements of paragraph (a) of
this section. You must instead conduct sensory monitoring, as described
in Sec. 65.430.
(5) Unsafe-to-monitor agitator seals. Any agitator seal that you
designate, in accordance with Sec. 65.416(a)(1), as an unsafe-to-
monitor agitator seal is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the
agitator seal according to the written plan specified in Sec.
65.416(a)(4)(i).
(6) Difficult-to-monitor agitator seals. Any agitator seal that you
designate, in accordance with Sec. 65.416(a)(2), as a difficult-to-
monitor agitator seal is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section. You must monitor, inspect and repair the
agitator seal according to the written plan specified in Sec.
65.416(a)(4)(ii).
Sec. 65.424 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
pressure relief devices?
Except as specified in paragraph (d), you must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for
PRD in gas and vapor service. If your referencing subpart specifies
that releases to the atmosphere from PRD in regulated material service
are not allowed, you must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section for all PRD in regulated material
service.
(a) Operating requirements. Operate each PRD in gas or vapor
service with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background.
(b) Release requirements. If a PRD in gas or vapor service vents or
releases to atmosphere, you must comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or
(2) of this section following the release.
(1) If the PRD does not consist of or include a rupture disk,
conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec. 65.431 no later
than 5 calendar days after the PRD returns to regulated material
service following a pressure release to verify that the PRD is
operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm. An
instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is a deviation.
(2) If the PRD consists of or includes a rupture disk, install a
replacement disk as soon as practicable after a pressure release, but
no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release. You must also
conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec. 65.431 no later
than 5 calendar days after the PRD returns to regulated material
service following a pressure release to verify that the PRD is
operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm. An
instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is a deviation.
(c) Pressure release management. If your referencing subpart
specifies that releases to the atmosphere from PRD in regulated
material service are not allowed, you must comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section for all PRD in
regulated material service, and any release from a PRD in regulated
material service is a deviation.
(1) You must equip each PRD in regulated material service with a
device(s) that is capable of identifying and recording the time and
duration of each pressure release and of notifying operators that a
pressure release has occurred. If this instrument is capable of
measuring the concentration of leaks through the PRD, then you may use
this instrument to meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section.
[[Page 18008]]
(2) If any PRD in regulated material service vents or releases to
atmosphere, you must calculate the quantity of regulated material
released during each pressure relief event. Calculations may be based
on data from the PRD monitoring alone or in combination with process
parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
(d) PRD routed to a control device. If all releases and potential
leaks from your PRD are routed through a closed vent system to a
control device, you are not required to comply with paragraphs (a), (b)
or (c) (if applicable) of this section. Both the closed vent system and
control device must meet Sec. 65.413.
Sec. 65.425 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
compressors?
You must comply with either the requirements specified in paragraph
(a) or (b) of this section for compressors in regulated material
service.
(a) Seal system standard. Each compressor must be equipped with a
seal system that includes a barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of process fluid to the atmosphere. You must comply with
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Compressor seal system. Each compressor seal system must meet
the applicable requirements specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i), (ii) or
(iii) of this section.
(i) The seal system is operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than the compressor stuffing box
pressure.
(ii) The seal system is equipped with a barrier fluid degassing
reservoir that is connected by a closed vent system to a control device
or is routed to a fuel gas system. The closed vent system and control
device or the fuel gas system must meet Sec. 65.413.
(iii) The seal system is equipped with a closed-loop system that
purges the barrier fluid directly into a process stream.
(2) Barrier fluid system. The barrier fluid must not be in light
liquid service. Each barrier fluid system must be equipped with a
sensor that will detect failure of the seal system, barrier fluid
system or both. Each sensor must be observed daily or must be equipped
with an alarm unless the compressor is located within the boundary of
an unmanned plant site.
(3) Failure criterion and leak detection. (i) You must determine,
based on design considerations and operating experience, a criterion
that indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system or
both. If the sensor indicates failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system or both, based on the criterion, a leak is detected, and
you must repair it, pursuant to Sec. 65.432, as applicable.
(ii) You must keep records of the design criteria, as specified in
Sec. 65.475(c)(6)(i).
(4) You must comply with Sec. 65.430 for all potential points of
vapor leakage on the compressor other than the seal system.
(b) Alternative compressor standard. (1) You must designate that
the compressor operates with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background at all times. Any instrument reading of 500 ppm above
background or greater is a deviation.
(2) You must conduct instrument monitoring of all potential points
of vapor leakage initially upon designation, annually and at other
times requested by the Administrator to demonstrate that the compressor
operates with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above
background.
(3) You must keep records of the compliance tests, as specified in
Sec. 65.475(c)(6)(ii).
Sec. 65.426 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
sampling connection systems?
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, you must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section
for sampling connection systems in regulated material service. For the
purposes of the definition of ``sampling connection system'' in Sec.
65.295, a continuous emission monitoring system is not an analyzer
vent.
(a) Equipment design and operation. Each sampling connection system
must be equipped with a closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent
system. Each closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent system must meet
the applicable requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4)
of this section, as applicable.
(1) Gases displaced during filling of a sample container are not
required to be collected or captured.
(2) Containers that are part of a closed-purge system must be
covered or closed when not being filled or emptied.
(3) Gases remaining in the tubing or piping between the closed-
purge system valve(s) and sample container valves(s) after the valves
are closed and a sample container is disconnected are not required to
be collected or captured.
(4) Each closed-purge, closed-loop or closed vent system must be
designed and operated to meet requirements in either paragraph
(a)(4)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this section.
(i) Return the purged process fluid directly to the process line.
(ii) Collect and recycle the purged process fluid to a process or
to a fuel gas system that meets the requirements of subpart M of this
part.
(iii) Capture and transport all the purged process fluid to a
control device that meets Sec. 65.413.
(iv) Collect, store and transport the purged process fluid to a
system or facility identified in paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(A), (B), (C), (D)
or (E) of this section.
(A) A waste management unit, as defined in 40 CFR 63.111, if the
waste management unit is subject to and operated in compliance with the
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G, applicable to group 1
wastewater streams.
(B) A treatment, storage or disposal facility subject to regulation
under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265 or 266.
(C) A facility permitted, licensed or registered by a state to
manage municipal or industrial solid waste, if the process fluids are
not hazardous waste, as defined in 40 CFR part 261.
(D) A waste management unit subject to and operated in compliance
with the treatment requirements of Sec. 61.348(a), provided all waste
management units that collect, store or transport the purged process
fluid to the treatment unit are subject to and operated in compliance
with the management requirements of Sec. Sec. 61.343 through 61.347.
(E) A device used to burn-off specification used oil for energy
recovery in accordance with 40 CFR part 279, subpart G, provided the
purged process fluid is not hazardous waste, as defined in 40 CFR part
261.
(b) In-situ sampling systems. In-situ sampling systems and sampling
systems without purges are exempt from the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section.
Sec. 65.427 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
open-ended valves and lines?
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, you must
comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section for all open-ended valves and lines in regulated material
service.
(a) Equipment and operational requirements. Equip open-ended valves
and lines with a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve so that the
open-ended valve or line operates with an instrument reading of less
than 500 ppm above background. The cap, blind flange, plug or second
valve must seal the open-ended valve or line at all times, except
during operations requiring process fluid flow through the
[[Page 18009]]
open-ended valve or line, during maintenance or during operations that
require venting the line between block valves in a double block and
bleed system. If the open-ended valve or line is equipped with a second
valve, close the valve on the process fluid end before closing the
second valve.
(b) Instrument monitoring. You must conduct instrument monitoring,
as specified in Sec. 65.431 on the cap, blind flange, plug or second
valve installed, pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section initially
upon installation, annually and at other times requested by the
Administrator to demonstrate that the open-ended valve or line operates
with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background. Any
instrument reading of 500 ppm above background or greater is a
deviation.
(c) Special provisions for open-ended valves and lines. (1)
Emergency shutdown exemption. Open-ended valves and lines in an
emergency shutdown system that are designed to open automatically in
the event of a process upset are exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. If your referencing subpart
specifies that releases are not allowed from open-ended valves and
lines in an emergency shutdown system that are designed to open
automatically in the event of a process upset, than any release from
such an open-ended valve or line is a deviation.
(2) Polymerizing materials exemption. Open-ended valves and lines
containing materials that would autocatalytically polymerize or would
present an explosion, serious overpressure or other safety hazard if
capped or equipped with a double block and bleed system, as specified
in paragraph (a) of this section are exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. You must instead conduct
sensory monitoring, as described in Sec. 65.430.
Sec. 65.428 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
other equipment that contacts or contains regulated material?
You must conduct sensory monitoring, as described in Sec. 65.430
for the equipment specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this
section.
(a) All equipment at a plant site with less than 1,500 total pieces
of equipment.
(b) Any equipment that contains or contacts regulated material, but
is not in regulated material service.
(c) Equipment in regulated material service less than 300 hours per
calendar year.
(d) Valves, pumps, connectors and agitators in heavy liquid
service.
(e) Connectors in gas and vapor service and connectors in light
liquid service not required by your referencing subpart to comply with
the provisions of Sec. 65.422.
(f) Instrumentation systems.
(g) Pressure relief devices in liquid service.
(h) Any equipment for which sensory monitoring is required
specifically by a provision in Sec. Sec. 65.420 through 65.427.
(i) Other equipment, as required by your referencing subpart.
Sec. 65.429 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems?
You must meet the requirements of this section for equipment in any
closed vent system or fuel gas system required to comply with subpart M
of this part. You are not required to comply with Sec. Sec. 65.420
through 65.428 for equipment complying with this section.
(a) You must conduct instrument monitoring, as specified in Sec.
65.431 of all potential points of vapor leakage on any equipment in a
closed vent system or fuel gas system initially upon installation,
annually and at other times requested by the Administrator to
demonstrate that the equipment operates with an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background. Any instrument reading of 500 ppm
above background or greater is a deviation.
(b) You must keep records of the compliance tests, as specified in
Sec. 65.475(c)(9).
Equipment Leak Monitoring and Repair
Sec. 65.430 What are my sensory monitoring requirements?
(a) You must conduct sensory monitoring, as defined in Sec. 65.295
for equipment identified in Sec. 65.428. You must also comply with
paragraph (b) through (d) of this section, as applicable.
(b) If indications of a potential leak to the atmosphere are found
by sensory monitoring methods, you must comply with either paragraph
(b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Within 5 calendar days of detection, you must comply with
either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Repair the equipment, as defined in Sec. 65.295 for
indications of a potential leak to the atmosphere detected during
sensory monitoring.
(ii) Determine that no bubbles are observed at potential leak sites
during a leak check, using a soap solution.
(2) Conduct instrument monitoring, as described in Sec. 65.431
within 5 calendar days of detection and repair the equipment in
accordance with Sec. 65.432 if the instrument reading is equal to or
greater than the applicable level in Table 1 to this subpart.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, you
must comply with the requirements of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of
this section for equipment in heavy liquid service. Paragraph (c)(3) of
this section describes how to determine or demonstrate that a piece of
equipment is in heavy liquid service.
(1) Retain information, data and analyses used to determine that a
piece of equipment is in heavy liquid service.
(2) When requested by the Administrator, demonstrate that the piece
of equipment or process is in heavy liquid service.
(3) A determination or demonstration that a piece of equipment or
process is in heavy liquid service shall include an analysis or
demonstration that the process fluids do not meet the definition of
``in light liquid service.'' Examples of information that could
document this include, but are not limited to, records of chemicals
purchased for the process, analyses of process stream composition,
engineering calculations or process knowledge.
(4) You are not required to comply with paragraphs (c)(1) through
(3) of this section if all the equipment of a certain type (e.g.,
valves) in your process unit is subject to sensory monitoring, as
required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(d) You must comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.
65.475(b)(5) for equipment in regulated material service less than 300
hours per calendar year.
Sec. 65.431 What instrument monitoring methods must I use to detect
leaks?
(a) Instrument monitoring methods. Instrument monitoring, as
required under this subpart, shall comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Monitoring method. Monitor, as specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, except as otherwise provided in this section.
Traverse the instrument probe around all potential leak interfaces as
close to the interface as possible, as described in Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7.
(2) Monitoring instrument performance criteria. (i) Except as
provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the volatile organic
compounds (VOC) monitoring instrument must meet the performance
criteria of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, except
[[Page 18010]]
the instrument response factor criteria in section 8.1.1.2 of Method 21
must be for the representative composition of the process fluid, not
each individual hydrocarbon compound in the stream. For process streams
that contain nitrogen, air, water or other inerts that are not
hydrocarbons, the representative stream response factor must be
determined on an inert-free basis. The response factor may be
determined at any concentration for which monitoring for leaks will be
conducted.
(ii) If there is no instrument commercially available that will
meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section, the instrument readings may be adjusted by multiplying by the
representative response factor of the process fluid, calculated on an
inert-free basis, as described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(3) Monitoring instrument calibration procedure. (i) Calibrate the
VOC monitoring instrument before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(ii) Perform a calibration drift assessment, at a minimum, at the
end of each monitoring day, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A)
through (D) of this section.
(A) Check the instrument using the same calibration gas(es) that
were used to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures
specified in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, section 10.1,
except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration
gas value.
(B) Record the instrument reading for each scale used, as specified
in paragraph (b) of this section. Divide these readings by the initial
calibration values for each scale and multiply by 100 to express the
calibration drift as a percentage.
(C) If any calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then you must
re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last calibration with
instrument readings below the applicable leak definition and above the
applicable leak definition adjusted for negative drift. Determine the
leak definition adjusted for negative drift according to Equation 4 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.136
Where:
LND = Applicable leak definition adjusted for negative
drift, ppm.
L = Applicable leak definition, ppm.
ND = Magnitude of negative drift calculated, as described in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, percent.
(D) If any calibration drift assessment shows a positive drift of
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then, at your
discretion, you may re-monitor all equipment monitored since the last
calibration with instrument readings above the applicable leak
definition and below the applicable leak definition adjusted for
positive drift. Determine the leak definition adjusted for positive
drift according to Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.137
Where:
LPD = Applicable leak definition adjusted for positive
drift, ppm.
L = Applicable leak definition, ppm.
PD = Magnitude of positive drift calculated, as described in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, percent.
(4) Monitoring instrument calibration gas. Calibration gases shall
be zero air (less than 10 ppm of hydrocarbon in air); and the gases
specified in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, except as provided in
paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.
(i) Mixtures of methane in air at a concentration no more than
2,000 ppm greater than the leak definition concentration of the
equipment monitored. If the monitoring instrument's design allows for
multiple calibration scales, then calibrate the lower scale with a
calibration gas that is no higher than 2,000 ppm above the
concentration specified as a leak and calibrate the highest scale with
a calibration gas that is approximately equal to 10,000 ppm. If only
one scale on an instrument will be used during monitoring, you need not
calibrate the scales that will not be used during that day's
monitoring.
(ii) A calibration gas other than methane in air may be used if the
instrument does not respond to methane or if the instrument does not
meet the performance criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section. In such cases, the calibration gas may be a mixture of one or
more of the compounds to be measured in air.
(5) Monitoring performance. Perform monitoring when the equipment
is in regulated material service or is in use with any other material
that is detectable by an instrument operated in accordance with Method
21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and paragraphs (a)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(6) Monitoring data. Monitoring data obtained prior to the
regulated source becoming subject to the referencing subpart that do
not meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of
this section may still be used to qualify initially for less frequent
monitoring under the provisions in Sec. 65.420(a)(2) or (3) for valves
or Sec. 65.422(a)(3) for connectors, provided the departures from the
criteria or from the specified monitoring frequency of Sec.
65.420(a)(2) or (3) or Sec. 65.422(a)(3) are minor and do not
significantly affect the quality of the data. Examples of minor
departures are monitoring at a slightly different frequency (such as
every 6 weeks instead of monthly or quarterly), following the
performance criteria of section 8.1.1.2 of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7, instead of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or
monitoring using a different leak definition if the data would indicate
the presence or absence of a leak at the concentration specified in
this subpart. Failure to use a calibrated instrument is not considered
a minor departure.
(7) Instrument monitoring using local ambient concentration
(background) adjustments. You may elect to adjust the instrument
readings for the local ambient concentration (``background''). If you
elect to adjust instrument readings for background, you must determine
the local ambient
[[Page 18011]]
concentration using the procedures in section 8.3.2 of Method 21 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(b) Using instrument readings. (1) If you elect not to adjust
instrument readings for background, as described in paragraph (a)(7) of
this section, you must comply with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) Monitor the equipment according to the procedures specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(ii) Compare all instrument readings directly to the applicable
leak definition or performance level for the monitored equipment to
determine whether there is a leak or to determine compliance with Sec.
65.424(a) (pressure relief devices), Sec. 65.425(b) (alternative
compressor standard) or Sec. 65.427(b) (open-ended lines and valves).
(2) If you elect to adjust instrument readings for background, as
described in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, you must comply with
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Monitor the equipment according to the procedures specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
(ii) Determine the background level, as described in paragraph
(a)(7) of this section.
(iii) Compute the arithmetic difference between the maximum
concentration indicated by the instrument and the background level
determined.
(iv) Compare this arithmetic difference to the applicable leak
definition or performance level for the monitored equipment to
determine whether there is a leak or to determine compliance with Sec.
65.424(a) (pressure relief devices), Sec. 65.425(b) (alternative
compressor standard) or Sec. 65.427(b) (open-ended lines and valves).
Sec. 65.432 What are my leak identification and repair requirements?
(a) Leaking equipment identification and records.
(1) When each leak is detected, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.420
through 65.428, Sec. 65.440 or Sec. 65.450, attach a weatherproof and
readily visible identification to the leaking equipment.
(2) When each leak is detected, record and keep the information
specified in Sec. 65.475(b)(8)(i).
(b) Leak repair schedule. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section, you must make a first attempt at repair, as
defined in Sec. 65.295, no later than 5 calendar days after the leak
is detected. First attempt at repair for pumps includes, but is not
limited to, tightening the packing gland nuts and/or ensuring that the
seal flush is operating at design pressure and temperature. First
attempt at repair for valves includes, but is not limited to,
tightening the bonnet bolts, and/or replacing the bonnet bolts, and/or
tightening the packing gland nuts, and/or injecting lubricant into the
lubricated packing. Unless you determine, by other means, that the
first attempt at repair was not successful, you must conduct instrument
monitoring following the first attempt at repair, but no later than 5
calendar days after the leak is detected to determine whether the first
attempt at repair was successful.
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4), (d) and (e) of this
section, if the first attempt at repair required by paragraph (b)(1) of
this section was not successful, you must repair each leak detected as
soon as practical, but not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected. If required by the applicable definition of ``repair'' in
Sec. 65.295, you must conduct monitoring following the repair, but no
later than 15 calendar days after the leak is detected to determine
whether the repair was successful.
(3) You must keep records, as specified in Sec. 65.475(b)(8)(ii)
through (iv).
(4) You may designate equipment as unsafe-to-repair, if you
determine that repair personnel would be exposed to an immediate danger
as a consequence of complying with the repair requirements of this
subpart. You are not required to comply with paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
for equipment that you have designated unsafe-to-repair, but you must
keep records, as specified in Sec. 65.475(b)(8)(v). You must also
comply with paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Leak identification removal.
(1) Valves in gas and vapor service. The leak identification on a
valve may be removed after it has been monitored, as specified in Sec.
65.420(c)(2) and no leak has been detected during that monitoring.
(2) Connectors in gas and vapor service. The leak identification on
a connector may be removed after it has been monitored, as specified in
Sec. 65.422(c)(2) and no leak has been detected during that
monitoring.
(3) Other equipment. Except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(2) of this section, you may remove the identification that you placed,
pursuant to Sec. 65.432(a)(1), on equipment determined to have a leak
after it is repaired.
(d) Delay of repair. Delay of repair is allowed for any of the
conditions specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
If you delay repair, you must comply with paragraph (e) of this
section. You must also maintain records, as specified in Sec.
65.475(b)(8)(vi) and (vii).
(1) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected
is allowed if repair within 15 days after a leak is detected is
technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown, provided you
comply with paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must repair this equipment as soon as practical, but no
later than the end of the next process unit shutdown or 5 years after
detection, whichever is sooner. For the purposes of this section, a
process unit shutdown is any shutdown that lasts more than 24 hours,
regardless of whether it was planned or unplanned.
(ii) Except as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section,
you must repair all equipment for which you have delayed repair during
the process unit shutdown.
(iii) If you detect a leak less than 15 days before the process
unit shutdown, you are not required to repair that leak during the
process unit shutdown.
(2) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected
is allowed if the equipment is designated as unsafe to repair according
to paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You must repair this equipment as
soon as practical, but no later than the end of the next process unit
shutdown or 5 years after detection, whichever is sooner.
(3) Delay of repair of equipment for which leaks have been detected
is allowed for equipment that you isolate from the process such that it
does not contact or contain regulated material.
(4) Delay of repair for valves, connectors and agitators is also
allowed if you meet the provisions of paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of
this section.
(i) You document the planned repair date and demonstrate that
emissions of purged material resulting from immediate repair would be
greater than the fugitive emissions likely to result from delay of
repair.
(ii) When you do repair the equipment, the purged material is
collected and destroyed, collected and routed to a fuel gas system or
routed through a closed vent system to a control device. The fuel gas
system or the closed vent system and the control device must meet Sec.
65.413.
(5) Delay of repair for pumps is also allowed if you meet the
provisions of paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Repair will consist of any of the design changes specified in
paragraph (d)(5)(i)(A), (B), (C) or (D) of this section.
[[Page 18012]]
(A) Replacing the existing seal design with a new system that you
have determined will provide better performance. You must document the
demonstration that the new system will provide better performance than
the existing seal.
(B) Installing a dual mechanical seal system that meets the
requirements of Sec. 65.421(d)(1).
(C) Installing a pump that meets the requirements of Sec.
65.421(d)(2).
(D) Installing a system that routes emissions through a closed vent
system to a control device or to a fuel gas system. The closed vent
system and control device or the fuel gas system must meet Sec.
65.413.
(ii) You complete repair as soon as practical, but not later than 6
months after the leak was detected.
(e) Requirements following the determination that delay of repair
is necessary. (1) You must continue to monitor equipment for which you
have delayed repair according to the provisions of paragraph (d)(1),
(2), (4) or (5) of this section. You must monitor the equipment on the
schedule required by Sec. Sec. 65.420 through 65.427, Sec. 65.440 or
Sec. 65.450, as applicable. You must maintain records of this
monitoring, as specified in Sec. 65.475(b)(8)(viii).
(2) If you delay repair for a pump or agitator according to the
provisions of paragraph (d)(1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) of this section,
you may suspend the weekly visual inspection required by Sec.
65.421(c) for pumps or Sec. 65.423(c) for agitators.
(3) Unless it is technically infeasible to do so, when you repair a
valve or connector for which you have delayed repair according to the
provisions of paragraph (d)(1), (2), (3) or (4) of this section, you
must replace the leaking equipment with low leak technology, as
described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section. You
must develop a written plan that addresses the demonstration of whether
a device or repair technique qualifies as low leak technology, criteria
for selecting the low leak technology to be used for a repair and
installation procedures for the selected technology.
(i) Low leak technology for valves includes, but is not limited to,
the options in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Repacking the valve or replacing the existing valve packing
with low emissions packing.
(B) Replacing the leaking valve with a valve designed to
accommodate low emissions packing.
(C) Replacing the existing valve with a bellow seal valve.
(D) Other repair or replacement that has been tested rigorously and
did not leak above 500 ppm during the entirety of the test.
(ii) Low leak technology for connectors includes, but is not
limited to, the options in paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A) through (C) of this
section.
(A) Replacing the flange gasket.
(B) Replacing the entire connector.
(C) Other repair or replacement that has been tested rigorously and
did not leak above 500 ppm during the entirety of the test.
(iii) If you cannot replace the leaking equipment with low leak
technology, then you would be required to explain why that replacement
is technically infeasible in your annual periodic report, pursuant to
Sec. 65.470(c)(3).
(iv) If that equipment leaks again in the future and you delay the
repair beyond 15 days, you must conduct a new analysis of the technical
feasibility of using low leak technology.
Alternative Equipment Leak Standards
Sec. 65.440 What is the alternative means of emission limitation for
equipment in batch operations?
For equipment in a batch operation that operates in regulated
material service during the calendar year, you may comply with the
equipment monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section as an alternative to complying with the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 65.420 through 65.427.
(a) You must comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 65.420
through 65.427, as modified by paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Monitor the equipment to detect leaks by the method specified
in Sec. 65.431 and as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Each time the process components and transport piping are
reconfigured for the production of a different product, monitor the
equipment in the reconfigured process unit for leaks within 30 days of
startup of the process. Do not include this initial monitoring of
reconfigured equipment in determining percent leaking equipment in the
process unit.
(2) You may elect to monitor pumps, valves and agitators at the
frequencies specified in Table 2 to this subpart. Determine the
operating time as the proportion of the year the batch operation that
is subject to the provisions of this subpart is operating.
(3) The monitoring frequencies specified in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section are not requirements for monitoring at specific intervals
and can be adjusted to accommodate process operations. You may monitor
anytime during the specified monitoring period (e.g., month, quarter,
year), provided the monitoring is conducted at a reasonable interval
after completion of the last monitoring campaign. Reasonable intervals
are defined in Sec. 65.280.
(c) You must keep the records for equipment in batch operations, as
specified in Sec. 65.475(d).
Optical Gas Imaging Standards for Detecting Equipment Leaks
Sec. 65.450 What are the standards and compliance requirements for
using an optical gas imaging instrument to detect leaks?
(a) Introduction. This section contains requirements for the use of
an optical gas imaging instrument used to identify leaking equipment.
(b) Applicability. You may only use an optical gas imaging
instrument to screen for leaking equipment if the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this paragraph are met.
(1) Your referencing subpart must directly reference this section
and specify that the use of an optical gas imaging instrument is
allowed to screen for leaking equipment.
(2) The optical gas imaging instrument must be able to meet all of
the criteria and requirements specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K
for optical gas imaging instruments, and you must conduct monitoring,
as specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix K.
(3) You may only use the optical gas imaging instrument as an
alternative to provisions that would otherwise require you to conduct
monitoring, as described in Sec. Sec. 65.430 and 65.431. You must
continue to comply with all other requirements in Sec. Sec. 65.420
through 65.427 (e.g., weekly inspections of pumps, pursuant to Sec.
65.421(c); for PRD, installation of a device that is capable of
identifying and recording the time and duration of each pressure
release, pursuant to Sec. 65.424(c), if applicable; sampling
connection system requirements in Sec. 65.426).
(c) Compliance requirements. You must meet the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Pursuant to Sec. 65.415, you must identify the equipment and
process units for which the optical gas imaging instrument will be used
to identify leaks.
(2) Unless your referencing subpart specifies otherwise, the leak
detection level for all equipment is 60 grams per hour.
(3) Unless your referencing subpart specifies otherwise, you must
monitor all equipment identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
bimonthly.
[[Page 18013]]
(4) For equipment identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
you may not use the provisions for less frequent monitoring, based on
the percent of equipment leaking in Sec. Sec. 65.420(a)(2) and
65.422(a)(3).
(5) When following the leak survey procedure in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix K, a leak is detected if you see any emissions using the
optical gas imaging instrument. The leaking equipment must be
identified for repair, as required in Sec. 65.432(a).
(6) You must repair the leaking equipment as required in Sec.
65.432(b) through (e).
(7) Monitoring to confirm repair of leaking equipment must be
conducted using the procedures referenced in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(d) Recordkeeping. You must comply with the requirements in Sec.
65.475(e).
Notifications, Reports and Records
Sec. 65.470 What notifications and reports must I submit?
(a) Notification of Compliance Status. You must include the
information listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section, as
applicable, in the Notification of Compliance Status that you submit
according to the procedures in Sec. 65.225.
(1) The notification must provide the information listed in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section for each regulated
source subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(i) Process unit, closed vent system or fuel gas system
identification.
(ii) Number of each equipment type (e.g., valves, pumps).
(iii) Method of compliance with the standard (e.g., ``monthly leak
detection and repair,'' ``equipped with dual mechanical seals,'' ``in
vacuum service'').
(2) For valves subject to Sec. 65.420 and connectors subject to
Sec. 65.422, provide the historical monitoring data you are using to
qualify for less frequent monitoring in lieu of having to do initial
monitoring, if applicable.
(3) If you are required to comply with Sec. 65.424(c), provide the
information in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Description of the monitoring system to be implemented,
including the PRD and process parameters to be monitored.
(ii) A description of the alarms or other methods by which
operators will be notified of a release.
(4) For closed vent systems, non-flare control devices and fuel gas
systems, pursuant to Sec. 65.413, provide the applicable information
specified in Sec. 65.880.
(b) Semiannual periodic report. You must report the information
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section, as
applicable, in the semiannual periodic report that you submit, as
specified in Sec. 65.225.
(1) For compressors, pursuant to Sec. 65.425(b), that are to be
operated with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm, report the
date of any instrument reading 500 ppm or greater and the date of the
next instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
(2) For PRD in gas or vapor service, pursuant to Sec. 65.424(b),
any instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater, more than 5 days after
the PRD returns to service after a release.
(3) For open-ended valves and lines, pursuant to Sec. 65.427(b),
report the date of any instrument reading 500 ppm or greater and the
date of the next instrument reading of less than 500 ppm.
(4) If your referencing subpart specifies that releases are not
allowed from PRD in regulated material service to the atmosphere,
report each release, including duration of the release and estimate of
quantity of substances released.
(5) For open-ended lines in an emergency shutdown system that are
designed to open automatically in the event of a process upset (and are
not required to install a cap/plug), report each release if your
referencing subpart states that releases from these types of open-ended
lines are not allowed.
(6) For equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems,
pursuant to Sec. 65.429, report the date of any instrument reading 500
ppm or greater and the date of the next instrument reading of less than
500 ppm.
(7) For closed vent systems, non-flare control devices and fuel gas
systems, pursuant to Sec. 65.413, provide the applicable information
specified in Sec. 65.882. For flares, report any instances when visual
emissions occur longer than 5 minutes during any 2 consecutive hours, a
pilot flame is out, or the pilot flames are not monitored.
(c) Annual periodic report. You must report the information
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section, as
applicable, in the annual periodic report that you submit, as specified
in Sec. 65.225.
(1) Provide a summary table that includes the information specified
in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section for each process
unit.
(i) For the equipment specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through
(E) of this section, report the number of each type of equipment for
which leaks were detected.
(A) Valves, pursuant to Sec. 65.420(a).
(B) Pumps, pursuant to Sec. 65.421(a), (d)(1)(v)(B) and
(d)(1)(vii).
(C) Connectors, pursuant to Sec. 65.422(a).
(D) Agitators, pursuant to Sec. 65.423(a), (d)(1)(v)(B) and
(d)(1)(vii).
(E) Compressors, pursuant to Sec. 65.425(a).
(ii) Report the total number of valves and connectors monitored and
the percent leaking, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.420(b) (valves) and
65.422(b) (connectors).
(iii) For each type of equipment specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i)(A) through (E) of this section, report the number of leaks
that were not repaired, as required by Sec. 65.432.
(iv) Identify the number of valves that are determined by Sec.
65.420(b)(3) to be non-repairable.
(2) Where you delay any repair, pursuant to Sec. 65.432(d), report
that delay of repair has occurred and explain why delay of repair is
necessary.
(3) If you delayed repair for a valve or connector and you
demonstrated that it is technically infeasible to repair the equipment
using low leak technology, pursuant to Sec. 65.432(e)(3), include
documentation of that demonstration.
(4) For PRD subject to Sec. 65.424(b), report confirmation that
you conducted all monitoring to show compliance conducted within the
reporting period.
(5) For compressors, pursuant to Sec. 65.425(b), that are to be
operated with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm, report
confirmation that you conducted all monitoring to show compliance
conducted within the reporting period.
(6) For open-ended lines and valves, pursuant to Sec. 65.427(b),
report confirmation that you conducted all monitoring to show
compliance conducted within the reporting period.
(7) For equipment in closed vent systems and fuel gas systems,
pursuant to Sec. 65.429, report confirmation that you conducted all
monitoring to show compliance conducted within the reporting period.
(8) Report the information listed in Sec. 65.470(a)(1) through (3)
for the Notification of Compliance Status for regulated sources with
later compliance dates. Report any revisions to items reported in an
earlier Notification of Compliance Status if the method of compliance
has changed since the last report.
Sec. 65.475 What are my recordkeeping requirements?
(a) Recordkeeping system. You may develop and use one recordkeeping
system to comply with the
[[Page 18014]]
recordkeeping requirements for all of your sources that are subject to
the provisions of this subpart. The recordkeeping system must identify
the type of program being implemented (e.g., quarterly monitoring, dual
mechanical seals) for each type of equipment. The records required by
this subpart are specified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this
section.
(b) General equipment records. (1) As specified in Sec. 65.415,
you must keep equipment identification records if the equipment is not
physically tagged and you elect to identify the equipment subject to
this subpart through written documentation such as a log or other
designation.
(2) If you designate equipment as either unsafe- or difficult-to-
monitor, you must keep the records specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section onsite as long as the equipment is
designated as either unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor.
(i) You must maintain the identity of unsafe- and difficult-to-
monitor equipment, as specified in Sec. 65.416(a).
(ii) You must keep records of the planned schedule for monitoring
unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor equipment and an explanation why the
equipment is unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor, as specified in Sec.
65.416(a)(3).
(iii) You must keep a written plan for monitoring unsafe- or
difficult-to-monitor equipment, as required by Sec. 65.416(a)(4). Your
plan must include procedures for repairing any leaks found when
monitoring is conducted.
(3) You must maintain the identity of compressors operating with an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm, as specified in Sec.
65.416(c).
(4) You must keep records associated with the determination that
equipment is in heavy liquid service, as specified in Sec. 65.430(c),
if applicable.
(5) You must keep records associated with the determination that
equipment is in regulated material service less than 300 hours per
calendar year, as specified in Sec. 65.430(d), if applicable.
(6) For equipment in vacuum service, you must keep records of any
pressure alarms triggered, including the date and time the alarm was
triggered, as well as the duration the equipment was not in vacuum
service.
(7) You must maintain records of the information specified in
paragraphs (b)(7)(i) through (vi) of this section for monitoring
instrument calibrations conducted according to sections 8.1.2 and 10 of
Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, and Sec. 65.431(a)(3) and
(4).
(i) Date of calibration and initials of operator performing the
calibration.
(ii) Calibration gas cylinder identification, certification date
and certified concentration.
(iii) Instrument scale(s) used.
(iv) A description of any corrective action taken if the meter
readout could not be adjusted to correspond to the calibration gas
value in accordance with section 10.1 of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7.
(v) Results of each calibration drift assessment required by Sec.
65.431(a)(3)(ii) (i.e., instrument reading for calibration at end of
the monitoring day and the calculated percent difference from the
initial calibration value).
(vi) If you make your own calibration gas, a description of the
procedure used.
(8) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i)
through (viii) of this section for leaking equipment detected according
to Sec. 65.431 and repaired according to Sec. 65.432. You must keep
the information for connectors complying with the 8-year monitoring
period allowed under Sec. 65.422(a)(3)(iii) for 5 years beyond the
date of its last use.
(i) The date the leak was detected and the maximum instrument
reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7,
including the background concentration if you elect to adjust
instrument readings for background, as described in Sec. 65.431(a)(7).
(ii) The date of first attempt to repair the leak.
(iii) The date of successful repair of the leak.
(iv) Maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7, at the time the leak is successfully repaired or
determined to be non-repairable.
(v) A record of the identity and an explanation, as specified in
Sec. 65.432(b)(4) for any equipment designated as unsafe-to-repair.
(vi) ``Repair delayed,'' the reason for the delay if a leak is not
repaired within 15 calendar days after discovery of the leak and, where
appropriate, why the repair was technically infeasible without a
process unit shutdown, pursuant to Sec. 65.432(d)(1), or the
calculation showing that emissions of purged material resulting from
immediate repair would be greater than the fugitive emissions likely to
result from delay of repair, pursuant to Sec. 65.432(d)(4)(i). As an
alternative to listing the reason for delay of repair for each leak,
you may elect to develop written guidelines that identify the
conditions that justify a delay of repair. If you elect to develop
written guidelines, you may document the reason for delay of repair for
each leak in your records by citing the relevant sections of the
written guidelines. You must maintain the written guidelines at the
plant site.
(vii) Dates of process unit shutdowns that occur while the
equipment is unrepaired.
(viii) Instrument readings measured by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-7, while repair is delayed.
(9) You must keep the applicable records specified in Sec. 65.860
for closed vent systems, control devices and fuel gas systems used to
comply with this subpart.
(c) Specific equipment records. You must keep the records specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section as applicable to the
compliance options with which you are complying.
(1) For valves, you must maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The start and end dates of each monitoring period for each
process unit, as specified in Sec. 65.420(a)(2).
(ii) If you decided to subgroup valves, pursuant to Sec.
65.420(a)(3), the valve subgrouping records specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Which valves are assigned to each subgroup.
(B) Monitoring results and calculations made for each subgroup for
each monitoring period.
(C) Which valves are reassigned, the last monitoring result prior
to reassignment and when they were reassigned.
(D) The results of the semiannual overall performance calculation
required in Sec. 65.420(a)(3)(iii).
(iii) The inputs and results for the calculation to determine
percent leaking valves in Sec. 65.420(b)(1).
(2) For pumps, you must maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Pursuant to Sec. 65.421(c), documentation that pump visual
inspections occurred, the date of each inspection and the results of
each inspection, including a description of the characteristics of the
liquids dripping, if observed.
(ii) Pursuant to Sec. 65.421(d)(1)(v), documentation that dual
mechanical seal pump visual inspections occurred, the date of each
inspection and the results of each inspection.
(iii) Pursuant to Sec. 65.421(d)(1)(vi), documentation of the
criteria that indicate failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid
system or both. Record the design criteria selected, explanations of
how those criteria were selected and any changes to the criteria and
the reason for the changes.
[[Page 18015]]
(3) For connectors, you must maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The start date and end date of each monitoring period for each
process unit, pursuant to Sec. 65.422(a)(3).
(ii) The inputs and results for the calculation to determine
percent leaking connectors in Sec. 65.422(b).
(4) For agitators, you must maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Pursuant to Sec. 65.423(c), documentation that agitator seal
visual inspections occurred, the date of each inspection and the
results of each inspection.
(ii) Pursuant to Sec. 65.423(d)(1)(v), documentation that dual
mechanical seal agitator visual inspections occurred, the date of each
inspection and the results of each inspection.
(iii) Pursuant to Sec. 65.423(d)(1)(vi), documentation of the
criteria that indicate failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid
system or both. Record the design criteria selected, explanations of
how those criteria were selected, and any changes to the criteria and
the reason for the changes. This record must be available for review by
an inspector.
(5) For pressure relief devices, you must maintain records of the
information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Pursuant to Sec. 65.424(b), the dates of pressure releases and
the dates and results of monitoring following a pressure release,
including the background level measured and the maximum instrument
reading measured during the monitoring (or the concentration measured
by the monitor required by Sec. 65.424(c), if applicable).
(ii) Pursuant to Sec. 65.424(b)(2), the date the rupture disk was
replaced.
(iii) Pursuant to Sec. 65.424(c)(2), the quantity of regulated
material released during each pressure relief event.
(6) For compressors, you must maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Pursuant to Sec. 65.425(a)(3), documentation of the criteria
that indicate failure of the seal system, the barrier fluid system or
both. Record the design criteria selected, explanations of how those
criteria were selected, and any changes to the criteria and the reason
for the changes.
(ii) Pursuant to Sec. 65.425(b), for compressors operating under
the alternative compressor standard, records of the dates and results
of each compliance test, including the background level measured and
the maximum instrument reading measured during each compliance test.
(7) For sampling connection systems complying with Sec. 65.426,
you must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) Records of the date of each purge.
(ii) An estimate of the amount of material purged.
(8) Pursuant to Sec. 65.427(b), for open-ended valves and lines,
records of the dates and results of each compliance test, including the
background level measured and the maximum instrument reading measured
during each compliance test.
(9) Pursuant to Sec. 65.413, for equipment in closed vent systems
and fuel gas systems, records of the dates and results of each
compliance test, including the background level measured and the
maximum instrument reading measured during each compliance test.
(d) Records for the alternative compliance option for equipment in
batch operations. For equipment in each batch operation complying with
Sec. 65.440, you must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section, as applicable, as well as paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Prepare a list of equipment added to the batch operation since
the last monitoring period required in Sec. 65.440.
(2) Record and keep, pursuant to the referencing subpart and this
subpart, the date and results of the monitoring required in Sec.
65.440 for equipment added to a batch operation since the last
monitoring period. If no leaking equipment is found during this
monitoring, you must record that the inspection was performed, but
records of the actual monitoring results are not required.
(3) Maintain records demonstrating the proportion of the time
during the calendar year the equipment is in use in a batch operation
that is subject to the provisions of this subpart. Examples of suitable
documentation are records of time in use for individual pieces of
equipment or average time in use for the process unit. These records
are not required if you do not adjust monitoring frequency by the time
in use, as provided in Sec. 65.440(b)(2) and (3).
(4) Document that the equipment was in service at the time you
conducted instrument monitoring, pursuant to Sec. 65.440.
(e) Records for optical gas imaging. Pursuant to Sec. 65.450, you
must keep the records described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of
this section:
(1) The equipment and process units for which you choose to use the
optical gas imaging instrument.
(2) All records required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix K.
(3) A video record to document the leak survey results. The video
record must include a time and date stamp for each monitoring event.
(4) Identification of the equipment screened and the time and date
of the screening.
(5) Documentation of repairs attempted and repairs delayed, as
specified in paragraph (b)(8)(ii) through (viii) of this section. If
you confirm repair of a leak using the optical gas imaging instrument,
then instead of the maximum instrument reading measured by Method 21 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 required by paragraph (b)(8)(iv) of this
section, you must keep a video record following repair to confirm the
equipment is repaired. You must keep the information for connectors
complying with the 8-year monitoring period allowed under Sec.
65.422(a)(3)(iii) for 5 years beyond the date of its last use.
(f) Flare records. If you use a flare as specified in Sec. 65.413,
you must keep records of all visual emissions observed, periods when a
pilot flame is out, and any periods that the pilot flames are not
monitored.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 65.490 What definitions apply to this subpart?
All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the
Clean Air Act and subpart H of this part, unless otherwise specified in
the referencing subpart.
List of Tables in Subpart J of Part 65
Table 1 to Subpart J of Part 65--Instrument Readings That Define a Leak
for Equipment Complying With Sec. 65.430(b)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you comply with Sec. The instrument reading that defines a
65.430(b)(2) for . . . leak is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Valves........................ i. 500 ppm.
[[Page 18016]]
2. Pumps......................... i. 5,000 ppm for pumps handling
polymerizing monomers and 2,000 ppm
for all other pumps.
3. Connectors.................... i. 500 ppm.
4. Agitators..................... i. 10,000 ppm.
5. Instrumentation systems....... i. 10,000 ppm.
6. PRD........................... i. 500 ppm.
7. Compressors................... i. 500 ppm.
8. Open ended valves or lines.... i. 500 ppm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart J of Part 65--Monitoring Frequency for Equipment in Batch Operations Complying With Sec.
65.440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you would be required
If the equipment in a batch operation to monitor the equipment You must monitor the equipment in the batch
is in use . . . in a process operating the operation . . .
entire year . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 0 to less than 25 percent of the a. Monthly................ i. Quarterly.
hours during the year.
b. Quarterly.............. i. Annually.
c. Semiannually........... i. Annually.
2. 25 to less than 50 percent of the a. Monthly................ i. Quarterly.
hours during the year.
b. Quarterly.............. i. Semiannually.
c. Semiannually........... i. Annually.
3. 50 to less than 75 percent of the a. Monthly................ i. Bimonthly.
hours during the year.
b. Quarterly.............. i. Three times per year.
c. Semiannually........... i. Semiannually.
4. 75 to 100 percent of the hours a. Monthly................ i. Monthly.
during the year.
b. Quarterly.............. i. Quarterly.
c. Semiannually........... i. Semiannually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Add subpart M to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart M--National Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices
General
65.700 What is the purpose of this subpart?
65.701 Am I subject to this subpart?
65.702 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
65.703 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
65.704 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
65.705 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Control Devices
65.710 What general monitoring requirements must I meet for control
devices?
65.711 What are the requirements for continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS)?
65.712 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring
systems (CPMS)?
65.713 How do I establish my operating limits?
65.720 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems?
65.724 What requirements must I meet for small boilers and process
heaters?
65.726 What monitoring requirements must I meet for thermal
oxidizers?
65.728 What monitoring requirements must I meet for catalytic
oxidizers?
65.732 What monitoring requirements must I meet for fuel gas
systems?
65.740 What monitoring requirements must I meet for absorbers?
65.742 What monitoring requirements must I meet for adsorbers
regenerated onsite?
65.744 What monitoring requirements must I meet for non-regenerative
adsorbers?
65.746 What requirements must I meet for condensers?
65.748 What requirements must I meet for biofilters?
65.760 What requirements must I meet for sorbent injection and
collection systems?
65.762 What requirements must I meet for fabric filters?
65.800 What requirements must I meet for other control devices?
Performance Testing
65.820 What are the performance testing requirements?
65.821 At what process conditions must I conduct performance
testing?
65.822 At what process conditions must I conduct performance testing
for batch process operations?
65.823 How do I sample from vent streams?
65.824 What is the performance test duration?
65.825 What performance test methods do I use?
65.826 How do I calculate emissions in parts per million by volume
concentration?
65.827 How do I demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction
requirement?
65.828 How do I determine percent reduction?
65.829 How do I demonstrate compliance with a hydrogen halide and
halogen emission limit specified in a referencing subpart?
65.830 When can an engineering assessment be used and what does it
include?
Batch Emission Calculations
65.835 What emissions calculations must I use for batch process
operations for purposes of compliance with an aggregated percent
reduction?
Design Evaluation
65.850 How do I demonstrate compliance through design evaluation?
Recordkeeping
65.855 How do I calculate monitoring data averages?
65.860 What records must I keep?
Reporting
65.880 What information do I submit as part of my Notification of
Compliance Status?
65.882 What information must I submit in my semiannual periodic
report?
[[Page 18017]]
65.884 What other reports must I submit and when?
List of Tables in Subpart M of Part 65
Table 1 to Subpart M of Part 65--CEMS Monitoring
Table 2 to Subpart M of Part 65--Monitoring Equipment as an
Alternative to CEMS Monitoring
Table 3 to Subpart M of Part 65--Operating Parameters, Operating
Limits and Data Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Compliance Frequencies
Table 4 to Subpart M of Part 65--Calibration and Quality Control
Requirements for CPMS
Table 5 to Subpart M of Part 65--Methods and Procedures for
Conducting Performance Tests for Vent Streams
Subpart M--National Uniform Emission Standards for Control Devices
General
Sec. 65.700 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart specifies requirements to meet the emission standards
of a referencing subpart for closed vent systems, control devices and
routing of air emissions to a fuel gas system.
Sec. 65.701 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you are an owner or operator who
is subject to a referencing subpart and you have been expressly
directed to comply with this subpart by a referencing subpart.
Sec. 65.702 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must comply with the following:
(1) The applicable provisions of subpart H of this part.
(2) The General Provisions that are applicable to the referencing
subpart (i.e., subpart A of parts 60, 61 or 63 of this chapter), as
specified in subpart H and the referencing subpart.
(3) The section(s) of this subpart corresponding to the control
measure(s) being used.
(4) Sec. 65.720 for closed vent systems.
(5) All applicable requirements referenced in the provisions listed
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(b) Operation of closed vent systems, control devices or fuel gas
systems. You must operate closed vent systems, control devices or fuel
gas systems used to comply with the referencing subpart, at all times
when emissions are vented to or collected by these systems or devices.
(c) Halogenated vent streams. Unless required to do so by paragraph
(d) of this section, you may determine whether each vent stream is
halogenated by establishing the mass emission rate and the vent stream
concentration (parts per million by volume (ppmv), by compound) of
halogen atoms, based on one or more of the procedures specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Process knowledge that no halogen, hydrogen halides or organic
halides are present in the process.
(2) Applicable engineering assessment, as discussed in Sec.
65.830.
(3) Concentration of compounds containing halogen and hydrogen
halides measured by Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8,
and organic halides measured by Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-6.
(4) Concentration of compounds containing hydrogen halides may be
measured by Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
(5) Any other method or data that has been validated according to
the applicable procedures in Method 301 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
(d) Halogenated vent stream control requirements. If you control a
vent stream using a boiler, process heater, oxidizer or fuel gas
system, you must determine whether the vent stream is halogenated,
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. If you determine the vent
stream is halogenated, you must convey the gas stream exiting the
boiler, process heater or oxidizer to a halogen reduction device, such
as an absorber meeting the requirements of Sec. 65.740, or other
device meeting the requirements of Sec. 65.800, before it is
discharged to the atmosphere. You may use a halogen reduction device to
reduce the vent stream halogen atom mass emission rate to less than
0.45 kilogram per hour and, thus, make the vent stream nonhalogenated.
(e) Performance test requirements. You must conduct a performance
test according to the procedures in Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829.
However, you are not required to conduct a performance test if any of
the control measures specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section are used.
(1) A control device for which the referencing subpart allows a
design evaluation as an alternative to the performance test.
(2) You use a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) meeting
the requirements in Sec. 65.711 to monitor the performance of the
control device that would otherwise require performance testing.
(3) Control measures for which you have received an approved
performance test waiver, according to Sec. 65.245 of this chapter.
(4) If a prior performance test was conducted using the same
procedures specified in Sec. 65.724(b) for boilers and process
heaters, Sec. 65.726(b) for thermal oxidizers, Sec. 65.728(b) for
catalytic oxidizers, Sec. 65.740(b) for absorbers, Sec. 65.742(f) for
adsorbers regenerated on site, Sec. 65.744(b) for non-regenerative
adsorbers, Sec. 65.746(b) for condensers, Sec. 65.748(b) for
biofilters, Sec. 65.760(b) for sorbent injection, Sec. 65.762(b) for
fabric filters and Sec. 65.800(b) for other control devices, as
applicable, and, either no process changes have been made since the
test or you can demonstrate that the results of the performance test,
with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite
process changes, you may only use a prior performance test that is less
than 5 years old in lieu of a performance test. You must request
permission to substitute a prior performance test by application to the
Administrator that includes the information specified in Sec.
65.884(f). You must be able to establish appropriate operating limits
using the information collected during the prior performance test. If a
performance test is waived, you are still subject to any subsequent or
periodic performance test requirements.
(5) If you use a condenser and comply with Sec. 65.746.
(f) Process changes. If you make a change to process equipment or
operating conditions that is expected to affect the operating parameter
values of a control device and render the operating limits ineffective
as indicators of compliance with the standard, you must conduct a
performance test, as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, within
180 days of the date of start-up of the change to establish new
operating limits and demonstrate that the changed emission point is in
compliance with the applicable emission limit of the referencing
subpart. Whenever you make a change, you must report the change, as
specified in Sec. 65.884(i).
(g) Monitoring data averages. You must calculate monitoring data
averages, as specified in Sec. 65.855.
(h) Recordkeeping. You must keep up-to-date, readily accessible
records of applicable records, as specified in Sec. 65.860.
(i) Reports. You must submit reports, as specified in Sec. Sec.
65.880 through 65.884.
Sec. 65.703 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
This subpart applies to control devices that receive regulated
material and that are used to comply with a referencing subpart. This
subpart also applies to closed vent systems that route
[[Page 18018]]
regulated material to control devices and fuel gas systems that receive
regulated material.
Sec. 65.704 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
The General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61 and 63 apply to this
subpart, as specified in subpart H of this part.
Sec. 65.705 What definitions apply to this subpart?
All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the
Clean Air Act and subpart H of this part, unless otherwise specified in
the referencing subpart.
Control Devices
Sec. 65.710 What general monitoring requirements must I meet for
control devices?
(a) You must meet the general monitoring requirements of this
section for all control devices used to comply with the referencing
subpart.
(b) If you choose to use a CEMS to meet the requirements as
specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with the
provisions specified in Sec. 65.711. If you choose to use a continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to meet the requirements, as
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must comply with the
provisions specified in Sec. 65.712.
(c) You are not required to operate CEMS or CPMS during periods of
no flow, or no flow of regulated material to the control device;
however, if flow could be intermittent, you must install a flow
indicator to identify periods of flow/no flow at the inlet or outlet of
the control device. You must keep records of periods of flow/no flow,
or no flow of regulated material to the control device, as specified in
Sec. 65.860(i). Flow indicators used only to identify periods of flow
and no flow are not subject to the requirements of Sec. 65.712.
However, you must perform a flow meter verification check annually. You
must perform the annual verification check for at least two points, one
at the instrument's zero and the other at the instrument's span.
(d) All monitoring equipment must be capable of providing a
continuous record.
(e) A deviation means any of the cases listed in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (5) of this section. Monitoring data are not required to be
collected during periods of non-operation of the process unit or
portion thereof (resulting in cessation of the emissions to which
monitoring applies).
(1) Periods of excess emissions, which are those periods when the
daily or block average value from a CEMS, reduced to the units of the
emissions standards, as specified in Sec. 65.711(j), exceeds an
emission limit specified in the referencing subpart.
(2) Operating parameter exceedances, which are those periods when
the daily or block average value of one or more monitored operating
parameters is outside the operating limit established under this rule.
(3) Any discharges to the atmosphere through a bypass line.
(4) Any period when you route regulated materials to a monitored
emission point that you do not collect data using your CEMS, CPMS or
other required non-continuous monitoring, as applicable. This does not
include periods of normally scheduled quality assurance activities in
your CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan or CPMS monitoring
plan that require the instrument to be offline (e.g., during
calibration checks).
(5) Any period when you route regulated emissions to a monitored
emission point when the continuous monitoring system (CMS) is not
operating properly or is out of control, as specified in Sec.
65.711(i) or Sec. 65.712(d).
Sec. 65.711 What are the requirements for continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS)?
(a) General. You must comply with the requirements of this section
for each CEMS unless the Administrator specifies or approves a change
(minor, intermediate or major) in methodology or an alternative for the
specified monitoring requirements and procedures, as provided in Sec.
65.240.
(b) Operation of CEMS. You must install, maintain and operate each
CEMS, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Install each CEMS according to the procedures contained in the
applicable performance specification(s) listed in paragraph (h) of this
section. Locate the sampling probe or other interface at a measurement
location relative to each regulated process unit such that you obtain
representative measurements of emissions from the regulated source
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device).
(2) When you combine the regulated emissions from two or more
regulated emission units before release to the atmosphere, you may
install an applicable CEMS for each emissions unit or for the combined
emissions stream, provided the monitoring is sufficient to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit for each emissions unit.
(3) If the relevant emission limit is a mass emission standard and
the regulated emissions from a regulated emissions unit are released to
the atmosphere through more than one emission point, you must install
an applicable CEMS at each emission point.
(4) You must ensure the readout (that portion of the CEMS that
provides a visual display or record), or other indication of emissions,
from any CEMS required for compliance with an emission standard is
readily accessible onsite for operational control or inspection by the
operator of the source.
(5) You must conduct a CEMS performance evaluation, pursuant to the
schedule specified in the referencing subpart, and periodically, as
specified in your CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(6) All CEMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation
(sampling, analyzing and data recording) for each successive 15-minute
period.
(7) Except for maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or
checks to maintain precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero
and span adjustments, you must operate all CEMS and collect data
continuously when you route regulated emissions to the monitored
emission point.
(8) Upon submittal of the CEMS performance evaluation and
monitoring plan to the Administrator for approval, you must operate and
maintain each CEMS according to the CEMS performance evaluation and
monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(9) You must modify the CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring
plan to incorporate the Administrator's comments and resubmit the plan
for approval to the Administrator within 30 days of receiving the
Administrator's comments. Upon re-submittal to the Administrator for
approval, you must operate and maintain each CEMS in conformance with
the revised CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan.
(10) For each CEMS, you must comply with the procedures for out-of-
control periods described in paragraph (i) of this section.
(11) You must reduce data from each CEMS, as specified in paragraph
(j) of this section.
(c) Quality control program. You must develop and implement a CEMS
quality control program documented in a CEMS performance evaluation and
monitoring
[[Page 18019]]
plan. You must include in the CEMS performance evaluation and
monitoring plan the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Routine quality control and assurance procedures that address
the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) CEMS evaluation procedures that meet the requirements of
paragraph (e) of this section.
(3) Additional information, as listed in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(d) CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan contents--
routine quality control and assurance procedures. In the CEMS
performance evaluation and monitoring plan, you must include a
description of the procedures listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6)
of this section and a schedule for conducting these procedures. The
routine procedures must provide an assessment of CEMS performance and
must be consistent with and incorporate applicable provisions of the
procedures specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
(1) Initial and subsequent calibration of the CEMS and acceptance
criteria.
(2) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the
CEMS.
(3) Preventive maintenance of the CEMS, including spare parts
inventory.
(4) Data recording, calculations and reporting;
(5) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis
methods.
(6) Program of corrective action for a CEMS that is not operating
properly or is out-of-control.
(e) CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan contents--CEMS
evaluation. In the CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan, you
must include the information listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of
this section.
(1) A description of the applicable CEMS evaluation procedure
specified in paragraph (h) of this section and the site-specific
details and procedures necessary to describe the applicable procedure
for your specific operation.
(2) The evaluation program objectives.
(3) Acceptance criteria.
(4) An evaluation program summary.
(5) Data quality objectives. (The pre-evaluation expectations of
precision, accuracy and completeness of data.)
(6) Conditions that would trigger a CEMS evaluation, which must
include, at a minimum, a newly installed CEMS; an existing CEMS that is
newly used to demonstrate compliance with a referencing subpart and has
not previously had a CEMS evaluation; a process change that is expected
to affect the performance of the CEMS; and the Administrator's request
for a performance evaluation under section 114 of the Clean Air Act. A
CEMS that is newly used to demonstrate compliance with a referencing
subpart that has previously had a CEMS evaluation, as specified in this
paragraph (e) of this section, and has followed routine quality
assurance procedures, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section,
since the previous CEMS evaluation, does not trigger an additional CEMS
evaluation unless a change is also made that is expected to affect the
performance of the CEMS.
(f) CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan contents--
additional information. In the CEMS performance evaluation and
monitoring plan, you must include information that provides background
about the source and monitoring equipment, as specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Identification of the pollutant being monitored by the CEMS and
the expected concentrations, including worst case concentrations at
normal operation and during possible process upsets.
(2) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the
information specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (vii) of this
section.
(i) Manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment
components.
(ii) Performance specifications, as provided by the manufacturer
and any differences expected for your installation and operation.
(iii) Location of the CMS sampling probe or other interface and a
justification of how the location meets the requirements of paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(iv) Placement of the CEMS readout, or other indication of
emissions, indicating how the location meets the requirements of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(v) Span of the analyzer.
(vi) Justification of the selection for the specific monitoring
equipment with respect to the pollutant and pollutant concentrations
expected.
(vii) Identification of the cycle time for the CEMS, indicating
that it meets the requirement of (b)(3) of this section.
(3) Description of the data collection and reduction systems,
including the information specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) A copy of the data acquisition system algorithm used to reduce
the measured data into the reportable form of the standard and
calculate the applicable averages.
(ii) Identification of whether the algorithm excludes data
collected during CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs,
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments.
(iii) If the data acquisition algorithm does not exclude data
collected during CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs,
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments, then include a
description of your procedure for excluding this data when the averages
calculated, as specified in Sec. 65.855, are determined.
(iv) If the measured data are converted to the reportable form of
the standard and/or averages calculated manually, documentation of the
calculation procedure.
(4) Identification of the applicable EPA performance
specification(s) for the CEMS.
(g) CEMS procedures. You must operate each CEMS in accordance with
each of the applicable procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of
this section and the CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (g)(2) through (4) of this
section, you must comply with procedure 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
F. If you operate a CEMS, based on Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy, you must replace the Relative Accuracy Test Audit
requirements of procedure 1 with the validation requirements and
criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of Performance Specification 15 of
part 60, appendix B.
(2) If you operate a particulate matter CEMS, you must comply with
procedure 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, instead of procedure 1 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix F.
(3) If you operate a mercury CEMS, you must comply with procedure 5
at 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, instead of procedure 1 at 40 CFR part
60, appendix F.
(4) If you operate a CEMS, meeting Performance Specification 9 or
15 requirements, you must determine the target analyte(s) for
calibration using either process knowledge of the vent stream or the
presurvey screening procedures in section 16 of Method 18 at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-6 on the control device outlet stream.
[[Page 18020]]
(h) Certification. As specified in the CEMS performance evaluation
and monitoring plan in paragraph (c) of this section, you must perform
a CEMS evaluation and certify your CEMS in accordance with the
performance specifications listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (9) of
this section, as specified in paragraphs (h)(10) and (11) of this
section, and in accordance with your CEMS performance evaluation and
monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Paragraph
(h)(12) of this section provides for situations when the performance
specifications listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (9) of this section
are not applicable. The performance specifications listed in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (11) of this section are found in appendix B of part 60.
(1) For particulate matter, Performance Specification 11.
(2) For hydrogen halides, Performance Specification 15.
(3) For mercury, Performance Specification 12A or 12B.
(4) For sulfur dioxide, Performance Specification 2.
(5) For total hydrocarbons, Performance Specification 8A.
(6) For speciated organic compounds using a gas chromatograph,
Performance Specification 9.
(7) For speciated organic compounds using Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy, Performance Specification 15.
(8) For oxygen or carbon dioxide, Performance Specification 3.
(9) For carbon monoxide, Performance Specification 4, if your
emission limit is above 200 ppmv, or Performance Specification 4A if
your emission limit is equal to or less than 200 ppmv.
(10) If you operate a CEMS meeting Performance Specification 9 or
15, you must determine the target analyte(s) for calibration using
either process knowledge of the vent stream or the pre-survey screening
procedures in section 16 of Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6
on the control device outlet stream.
(11) You may only use Performance Specification 15 to measure
hydrogen halides if you are not required to include halogens in your
measurement or you can demonstrate that there are no halogens in the
vent stream.
(12) If you wish to use a CEMS with no applicable Performance
Specification, you must submit a request for approval to use an
alternate monitoring method according to Sec. 65.240. Your alternative
monitoring method request must include the procedures for a CEMS
evaluation and other information typically contained in a Performance
Specification. This information must also be included in the CEMS
performance evaluation and monitoring plan specified on paragraph (d)
of this section.
(i) Out-of-control periods. For each CEMS, you must comply with the
out-of-control procedures described in paragraph (i) of this section
when the CEMS is out-of-control, as defined in paragraph (i)(1).
(1) If the conditions in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (ii) of this
section occur, the CEMS is out-of-control.
(i) If the zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable) or high-
level calibration drift exceeds two times the applicable calibration
drift specification in the applicable performance specification.
(ii) A CEMS is out of control if the CEMS fails a performance test
audit (e.g., cylinder gas audit), relative accuracy test audit or
linearity test audit.
(2) When the CEMS is out of control, you must take the necessary
corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate the
system is out of control. You must take corrective action and conduct
retesting until the performance requirements are below the applicable
limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour you
conduct a performance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an
exceedance of the performance requirements established in this section.
The end of the out-of-control period is the hour following the
completion of corrective action and successful demonstration that the
system is within the allowable limits. You must not use data recorded
during periods the CEMS is out of control in data averages and
calculations, used to report emissions or operating levels, as
specified in Sec. 65.855(b).
(j) CEMS data reduction. You must reduce data from a CEMS, as
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Convert all CEMS emission data into units of the emission limit
of the referencing subpart for reporting purposes using the conversion
procedures specified in that subpart. After conversion into units of
the emission limit, you may round the data to the same number of
significant digits as used in that emission limit.
(2) If a referencing subpart specifies an emission standard in a
specific percent oxygen, you must correct the concentrations, as
measured by the CEMS in accordance with Sec. 65.826(b).
(3) Calculate averages, as specified in Sec. 65.855.
(4) Record the CEMS data, as specified in Sec. 65.860.
(k) The CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan must be
submitted for approval to the Administrator 60 days before the CEMS
evaluation is to be conducted.
(l) If you are not proposing any alternative monitoring methods and
are intending to demonstrate compliance using the monitoring method(s)
specified in this section, you do not have to wait for approval of your
CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan before conducting the
CEMS evaluation or before following the other procedures of the CEMS
performance evaluation and monitoring plan.
(m) If you are proposing an alternative monitoring method, follow
the procedures in Sec. 65.240.
Sec. 65.712 What are the requirements for continuous parameter
monitoring systems (CPMS)?
(a) General. You must comply with the requirements of this section
for each CPMS unless the Administrator specifies or approves a change
(minor, intermediate or major) in methodology or an alternative for the
specified monitoring requirements and procedures, as provided in Sec.
65.240.
(b) Operation of CPMS. You must install, maintain and operate each
CPMS, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) Install and locate each CPMS sampling probe or other interface
at a measurement location relative to each regulated process unit or
control device being monitored such that you obtain representative
measurements of the operating parameter from the regulated source or
control device (e.g., on or downstream of the last control device).
(2) You must ensure the readout (that portion of the CPMS that
provides a visual display or record), or other indication of the
monitored operating parameter from any CPMS required for compliance is
readily accessible onsite for operational control or inspection by the
operator of the source.
(3) All CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation
(sampling, analyzing and data recording) for each successive 15-minute
period.
(4) Except for maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or
checks to maintain precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero
and span adjustments, you must operate all CPMS and collect data
continuously when you route regulated emissions to the monitored
emission point.
(5) Upon submittal of the CPMS monitoring plan to the Administrator
for approval, you must operate and maintain each CPMS according to the
[[Page 18021]]
CPMS monitoring plan specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(6) You must modify the CPMS monitoring plan to incorporate the
Administrator's comments and resubmit the plan for approval to the
Administrator within 30 days of receiving the Administrator's comments.
Upon re-submittal to the Administrator for approval, you must operate
and maintain each CPMS in conformance with the revised CPMS monitoring
plan.
(7) For each CPMS, you must comply with the out-of-control
procedures described in paragraphs (d) of this section.
(8) You must reduce data from a CPMS, as specified in paragraphs
(e) of this section.
(9) All monitoring equipment must meet the minimum accuracy,
calibration and quality control requirements specified in Table 4 to
this subpart.
(10) Your CPMS must be capable of measuring the appropriate
parameter over a range that extends from a value that is at least 20
percent less than the lowest value that you expect your CPMS to
measure, to a value that is at least 20 percent greater than the
highest value that you expect your CPMS to measure. The data recording
system associated with each CPMS must have a resolution that is equal
to or better than one-half of the required system accuracy.
(11) All CPMS must be installed, operational and calibrated, as
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, within 24 hours before
conducting the performance test or, if a performance test is not
required, prior to the compliance date. Subsequent calibrations must be
conducted, as specified in the CPMS monitoring plan, as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Quality control program. You must develop and implement a CPMS
quality control program documented in a CPMS monitoring plan. The CPMS
monitoring plan must contain the information listed in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The information specified in Sec. 65.225(g).
(2) Identification of the parameter to be monitored by the CPMS and
the expected parameter range, including worst case and normal
operation.
(3) Description of the monitoring equipment, including the
information specified in (c)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) Manufacturer and model number for all monitoring equipment
components.
(ii) Performance specifications, as provided by the manufacturer,
and any differences expected for your installation and operation.
(iii) The location of the CMS sampling probe or other interface and
a justification of how the location meets the requirements of paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(iv) Placement of the CPMS readout, or other indication of
parameter values, indicating how the location meets the requirements of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(v) Span of the analyzer.
(vi) Identify the parameter detected by the parametric signal
analyzer and the algorithm used to convert these values into the
operating parameter monitored to demonstrate compliance, if the
parameter detected is different from the operating parameter monitored.
(vii) Justification for the selection of the specific monitoring
equipment with respect to the parameter and expected parameter values.
(viii) Identify the cycle time for the CPMS.
(4) Description of the data collection and reduction systems,
including the information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) A copy of the data acquisition system algorithm used to reduce
the measured data into the reportable form of the standard and
calculate the applicable averages.
(ii) Identification of whether the algorithm excludes data
collected during CPMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs,
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments.
(iii) If the data acquisition algorithm does not exclude data
collected during CEMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs,
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments, then include a
description of your procedure for excluding this data when the averages
calculated, as specified in Sec. 65.855 are determined.
(iv) If the measured data are converted to the reportable form of
the standard and/or averages calculated manually, documentation of the
calculation procedure.
(5) Routine quality control and assurance procedures, including
descriptions of the procedures listed in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through
(vi) of this section and a schedule for conducting these procedures.
The routine procedures must provide an assessment of CPMS performance.
(i) Initial and subsequent calibration of the CPMS and acceptance
criteria.
(ii) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the
CPMS.
(iii) Daily checks for indications that the system is responding.
If the CPMS system includes an internal system check, you may use the
results to verify the system is responding, as long as you check the
internal system results daily for proper operation and the results are
recorded.
(iv) Preventive maintenance of the CPMS, including spare parts
inventory.
(v) Data recording, calculations and reporting.
(vi) Program of corrective action for a CPMS that is not operating
properly.
(d) Out-of-control periods. For each CPMS, you must comply with the
out-of-control procedures described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) A CPMS is out-of-control if the zero (low-level), mid-level (if
applicable) or high-level calibration drift exceeds two times the
accuracy requirement of Table 4 of this subpart.
(2) When the CPMS is out of control, you must take the necessary
corrective action and repeat all necessary tests that indicate the
system is out of control. You must take corrective action and conduct
retesting until the performance requirements are below the applicable
limits. The beginning of the out-of-control period is the hour you
conduct a performance check (e.g., calibration drift) that indicates an
exceedance of the performance requirements established in this section.
The end of the out-of-control period is the hour following the
completion of corrective action and successful demonstration that the
system is within the allowable limits. You must not use data recorded
during periods the CPMS is out of control in data averages and
calculations, used to report emissions or operating levels, as
specified in Sec. 65.855(b).
(e) CPMS data reduction. You must reduce data from a CPMS, as
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) You may round the data to the same number of significant
digits, as used in that emission limit.
(2) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or portion
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
monitoring applies must not be included in daily averages.
(3) Calculate averages, as specified in Sec. 65.855.
(4) The data from a CPMS must be recorded, as specified in Sec.
65.860.
(f) Monitoring plan submittal date. The CPMS monitoring plan must
be submitted for approval to the
[[Page 18022]]
Administrator 60 days before the initial CPMS evaluation is to be
conducted.
(g) Implementing the monitoring plan. If you are not proposing any
alternative monitoring methods and are intending to demonstrate
compliance using the monitoring method(s) specified in this section,
you do not have to wait for approval of your CPMS monitoring plan
before conducting the performance test or before following the
procedures of the CPMS monitoring plan.
(h) Alternative monitoring method. If you are proposing an
alternative monitoring method, follow the procedures in Sec. 65.240.
Sec. 65.713 How do I establish my operating limits?
You must establish operating limits for operating parameters
required to be monitored by this subpart by following the requirements
in this section or you may request approval of monitoring alternatives,
as specified in Sec. 65.884(h).
(a) You must establish the operating limit for each operating
parameter for each control device, based on the operating parameter
values recorded during the performance test, and may be supplemented by
engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations.
Performance testing is not required to be conducted over the entire
range of allowed operating parameter values.
(b) The established operating limit must represent the conditions
for which the control device is meeting the specified emission limit of
the referencing subpart.
(c) You must establish your operating limit as an operating
parameter range, minimum operating parameter level or maximum operating
parameter level, as specified in Table 3 to this subpart, as
applicable. Where this subpart does not specify which format to use for
your operating limit (e.g., operating range, or minimum/maximum
operating levels), you must determine which format best establishes
proper operation of the control device such that the control device is
meeting the specified emission limit of the referencing subpart.
(d) The operating limit may be based on ranges or limits previously
established under a referencing subpart. If a performance test is not
required for a control device and, except as specified in Sec.
65.748(b) for biofilters, the operating limit may be based on
engineering assessments and/or manufacturer's recommendations included
in the required design evaluation.
(e) For batch processes, you may establish operating limits for
individual emission episodes, including each distinct episode of vent
stream emissions, if applicable. If you elect to establish separate
operating limits for different emission episodes within a batch
process, then you must comply with the provisions in paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) Maintain a daily schedule or log of operating scenarios for
batch processes according to Sec. 65.860(f)(1).
(2) Provide rationale for each operating limit for each emission
episode in a batch pre-compliance report, as specified in Sec.
65.884(g). You must also report the rationale according to Sec.
65.884(j).
Sec. 65.720 What requirements must I meet for closed vent systems?
(a) General. If you operate a closed vent system that collects
regulated material from a regulated source, you must meet the
applicable requirements of this section. You must also meet the
applicable requirements of subpart J of this part.
(b) Collection of emissions. Each closed vent system must be
designed and operated to collect the regulated material vapors from the
emission point, and to route the collected vapors to a control device
with no release to the atmosphere through bypass lines.
(c) Bypass lines. Use of the bypass at any time to divert a
regulated vent stream is an emissions standards deviation for all
pollutants regulated by the referencing subpart. The use of the bypass
during a performance test invalidates the performance test. You must
comply with the provisions of either paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this
section for each closed vent system that contains bypass lines that
could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere.
(1) Bypass line flow indicator. Install, maintain and operate a
CPMS for flow, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Install a CPMS for flow at the entrance to any bypass line. The
CPMS must record the volume of the gas stream that bypassed the control
device.
(ii) Equip the CPMS for flow with an alarm system that will alert
an operator immediately and automatically when flow is detected in the
bypass line. Locate the alarm such that an operator can easily detect
and recognize the alert.
(2) Bypass line valve configuration. Secure the bypass line valve
in the non-diverting position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type
configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism
at least once every month to verify that the valve is maintained in the
non-diverting position, and the vent stream is not diverted through the
bypass line.
(d) Bypass records. For each closed vent system that contains
bypass lines that could divert a vent stream away from the control
device and to the atmosphere, or cause air intrusion into the control
device, you must keep a record of the information specified in either
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable.
(1) You must maintain records of any alarms triggered because flow
was detected in the bypass line, including the date and time the alarm
was triggered and the duration of the flow in the bypass line. You must
also maintain records of all periods when the vent stream is diverted
from the control device or air intrudes into the control device. You
must include an estimate of the volume of gas, the concentration of
regulated material in the gas and the resulting emissions of regulated
material that bypassed the control device.
(2) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with paragraph (c)(2)
of this section, hourly records of flow are not required. In such
cases, you must record the date that you complete the monthly visual
inspection of the seals or closure mechanisms. You must also record the
occurrence of all periods when the seal or closure mechanism is broken,
the bypass line valve position has changed or the key for a lock-and-
key type lock has been checked out. You must include an estimate of the
volume of gas, the concentration of regulated material in the gas and
the resulting emissions of regulated material that bypassed the control
device.
Sec. 65.724 What requirements must I meet for small boilers and
process heaters?
(a) Small boiler or process heater monitoring. You must install the
monitoring equipment and meet the requirements specified for small
boilers and process heaters in either Table 1 or Table 2 to this
subpart, even if the small boiler or process heater is part of a fuel
gas system.
(b) Small boiler or process heater performance test. You must
conduct a performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through
65.829, and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, even if the
small boiler or process heater is part of a fuel gas system, unless one
of the provisions in paragraph (c) of this section is met.
(1) When demonstrating compliance with a percent reduction emission
limit in a referencing subpart, you must determine the weight-percent
reduction of organic regulated material or total organic compounds
(minus methane and ethane) across the device by comparing the total
organic compounds (minus methane and ethane) or organic regulated
material in all combusted vent
[[Page 18023]]
streams and primary and secondary fuels with the total organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane) or organic regulated material
exiting the combustion device, respectively.
(2) When determining the weight-percent reduction, you must locate
the sampling sites for the measurement of total organic regulated
material or total organic compound (minus methane and ethane)
concentrations, as applicable, at the inlet of the small boiler or
process heater such that all vent streams and primary and secondary
fuels introduced into the boiler or process heater are included.
(c) Small boiler or process heater performance test exemptions. You
are not required to conduct a performance test if any of the general
control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) are used. You are also
not required to conduct a performance test if your small boiler or
process heater burns hazardous waste and has certified compliance with
the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter by conducting
comprehensive performance tests; you have submitted to the
Administrator a notification of compliance under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j)
and 63.1210(d) documenting compliance with the requirements of part 63,
subpart EEE of this chapter; and you comply with these requirements at
all times, even when you burn non-hazardous waste.
(d) Boiler or process heater design evaluation. If a referencing
subpart allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a
performance test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must
meet the requirements of Sec. 65.850. The design evaluation must
demonstrate that the small boiler or process heater meets the
applicable emission limit; consider the auto ignition temperature of
the regulated material and the vent stream flow rate; establish the
design minimum and average flame zone temperatures and combustion zone
residence time; and describe the method and location where the vent
stream is introduced into the flame zone.
(e) Boiler or process heater performance test records. If you have
chosen to monitor operating parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, you
must record the operating parameters, as specified in paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section, as applicable, measured during each
performance test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through
65.829.
(1) Record the fire box temperature measured during the performance
test at least every 15 minutes and average the temperature over each
run of the performance test.
(2) Record a location description of the vent stream junction into
the boiler or process heater.
(f) Boiler or process heater monitoring records. You must keep the
records specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-
date and readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
Sec. 65.726 What monitoring requirements must I meet for thermal
oxidizers?
(a) Thermal oxidizer monitoring. You must install the monitoring
equipment and meet the requirements specified for thermal oxidizers in
either Table 1 or 2 to this subpart.
(b) Thermal oxidizer performance test. You must conduct a
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, unless
any of the general control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) are
used. You are also not required to conduct a performance test if your
thermal oxidizer burns hazardous waste and has certified compliance
with the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter by
conducting comprehensive performance tests; you have submitted to the
Administrator a notification of compliance under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j)
and 63.1210(d) documenting compliance with the requirements of part 63,
subpart EEE of this chapter; and you comply with these requirements at
all times, even when you burn non-hazardous waste.
(c) Thermal oxidizer design evaluation. If a referencing subpart
allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance
test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the
requirements of Sec. 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the oxidizer
meets the applicable emission limit, the design evaluation must
consider the auto-ignition temperature of the regulated material and
the vent stream flow rate and establish the design minimum and average
temperature in the combustion zone and the combustion zone residence
time.
(d) Thermal oxidizer performance test records. If you have chosen
to monitor operating parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, you must
record the fire box temperature measured during each performance test
conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829. Record the
fire box temperature at least every 15 minutes and average the
temperature over each run of the performance test.
(e) Thermal oxidizer monitoring records. You must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and
readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
Sec. 65.728 What monitoring requirements must I meet for catalytic
oxidizers?
(a) Catalytic oxidizer monitoring. You must install the monitoring
equipment and meet the requirements specified for catalytic oxidizers
in either Table 1 or 2 to this subpart. For catalytic oxidizers for
which you have selected to monitor temperature at the inlet of the
catalyst bed, as specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct
catalyst checks according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must conduct sampling and analysis of the catalyst and meet
the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) You must determine a schedule for conducting sampling and
analysis of the catalyst, based upon the expected degradation rate of
the catalyst, and following the manufacturer's or catalyst supplier's
recommended procedures for sampling and analysis.
(ii) The catalyst sampling and analysis schedule must be included
in the performance test plan specified in Sec. 65.820(b) and approved
by the Administrator.
(iii) If results from the catalyst sampling and analysis indicate
that your catalyst will become inactive in 18 months or less, you must
replace the catalyst bed or take other corrective action consistent
with the manufacturer's recommendations within 3 months before the
catalyst is anticipated to become inactive or within half the time
available between receiving the catalyst activity report and when the
catalyst is expected to become inactive, whichever is less.
Additionally, you must determine if a more frequent catalyst
replacement schedule is necessary.
(iv) If you replace the catalyst bed with a catalyst different from
the
[[Page 18024]]
catalyst used during the performance test, you must conduct a new
performance test according to paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) You must conduct annual internal inspections of the catalyst
bed to check for fouling, plugging, mechanical breakdown, channeling,
abrasion and settling, and follow the procedures specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) If indications of fouling, plugging, mechanical breakdown,
channeling, abrasion or settling are found during the internal
inspection of the catalyst, you must replace the catalyst bed or take
other corrective action consistent with the manufacturer's
recommendations.
(ii) If you find any of these issues during the annual inspection,
then you must increase your inspection frequency to semi-annual. You
must increase the inspection frequency from semi-annual to quarterly,
and quarterly to monthly, if you find any issues requiring corrective
action during the semi-annual or quarterly inspection. You may return
the inspection frequency to the next less stringent frequency level
when no issues are found during an inspection.
(iii) If you replace the catalyst bed with a catalyst different
from the catalyst used during the performance test, you must conduct a
new performance test according to paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Catalytic oxidizer performance test. You must conduct a
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, unless
any of the general control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) are
used. You are also not required to conduct a performance test if your
catalytic oxidizer burns hazardous waste and has certified compliance
with the requirements of part 63, subpart EEE of this chapter by
conducting comprehensive performance tests; you have submitted to the
Administrator a notification of compliance under Sec. Sec. 63.1207(j)
and 63.1210(d) documenting compliance with the requirements of part 63,
subpart EEE of this chapter; and you comply with these requirements at
all times, even when you burn non-hazardous waste.
(c) Catalytic oxidizer design evaluation. If a referencing subpart
allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance
test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the
requirements of Sec. 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the oxidizer
meets the applicable emission limit, the design evaluation must
consider the vent stream flow rate and you must establish the design
minimum and average temperatures across the catalyst bed inlet and
outlet.
(d) Catalytic oxidizer performance test records. If you have chosen
to monitor operating parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, you must
record the upstream and downstream temperatures and the temperature
difference across the catalyst bed measured during each performance
test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829. Record
the upstream and downstream temperatures and the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed at least every 15 minutes and average each
temperature and temperature differential over each run of the
performance test.
(e) Catalytic oxidizer monitoring records. You must keep the
records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-
date and readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
(f) Catalytic oxidizer other records. For catalytic oxidizers for
which you have selected the monitoring specified in Table 2 to this
subpart, you must also maintain records of the results of the catalyst
sampling and inspections required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section, including any subsequent corrective actions taken.
Sec. 65.732 What monitoring requirements must I meet for fuel gas
systems?
(a) You must submit a statement that the emission stream is
connected to the fuel gas system in the Notification of Compliance
Status Report, as required, pursuant to Sec. 65.880(b).
(b) You must meet the requirements of subpart J of this part for
all components of a fuel gas system.
(c) If you have small boilers or process heaters that are part of a
fuel gas system, you must also comply with the provisions of Sec.
65.724 for the small boilers or process heaters.
(d) You must not route halogenated vent streams to a fuel gas
system unless the requirements of Sec. 65.702(d) are met.
Sec. 65.740 What monitoring requirements must I meet for absorbers?
(a) Absorber monitoring. You must install the monitoring equipment
and meet the requirements specified for absorbers in either Table 1 or
2 to this subpart.
(b) Absorber performance test. You must conduct a performance test,
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, unless any of the general
control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) are used.
(c) Absorber design evaluation. If a referencing subpart allows you
to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance test, and you
chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the requirements of
Sec. 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the absorber meets the
applicable emission limit, address the characteristics specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
(1) For an absorber, the design evaluation must consider the vent
stream composition, constituent concentrations, liquid-to-gas ratio,
absorber liquid flow rate and concentration, temperature, pressure drop
and the reaction kinetics or absorption characteristics of the
constituents with the scrubbing liquid. The design evaluation must
establish the design exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration
level.
(2) For tray and packed column absorbers, the design evaluation
must consider the characteristics specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, in addition to type and total number of theoretical and actual
trays, type and total surface area of packing for the entire column and
type and total surface area for individual packed sections if the
column contains more than one packed section.
(d) Absorber performance test records. If you have chosen to
monitor operating parameters in Table 2 to this subpart, you must keep
readily accessible records of the data specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
and (2) of this section, as applicable, measured during each
performance test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through
65.829.
(1) The absorber influent liquid flow rate or liquid-to-gas ratio
measured during the performance test. Record the influent liquid flow
rate or liquid-to-gas ratio at least every 15 minutes and average the
flow rate or liquid-to-gas ratio over each run of the performance test.
(2) If applicable, the pressure drop through the absorber, the pH
of the absorber liquid effluent, exit gas temperature, inlet gas
temperature, specific gravity, liquid feed pressure, oxidation chemical
flow rate and/or the oxidation chemical strength of the absorber liquid
influent measured during the performance test. Record the pressure drop
through the absorber, the pH of the absorber liquid effluent, exit gas
temperature, inlet gas temperature, specific gravity, liquid feed
pressure, oxidation chemical flow rate and/or the
[[Page 18025]]
oxidation chemical strength of the absorber liquid influent at least
every 15 minutes and average each operating parameter over each run of
the performance test.
(e) Absorber monitoring records. You must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and
readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in paragraph Sec. 65.860(a).
Sec. 65.742 What monitoring requirements must I meet for adsorbers
regenerated onsite?
(a) General. If you use regenerative adsorption systems that you
regenerate onsite, you must treat the regulated materials extracted
from the adsorption system as process wastewater or process vents
subject to control levels required by the referencing subpart.
(b) Regenerative adsorber monitoring. You must install the
monitoring equipment and conduct the monitoring, as specified in either
Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart for regenerative adsorption systems
that you regenerate onsite. For regenerative adsorbers, except those
monitored with CEMS, you must also conduct the checks specified in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, include in your monitoring plan
required in Sec. 65.712(c) your plans for complying with paragraph (d)
of this section and develop a corrective action plan, as specified in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(c) Regenerative adsorber valve and cycle verification. For
regenerative adsorbers, except those monitored with CEMS, you must
perform a verification of the adsorber during each day of operation.
The verification must be through visual observation or through an
automated alarm or shutdown system that monitors and records system
operational parameters. The verification must confirm that the adsorber
is operating with proper valve sequencing and cycle time.
(d) Regenerative adsorber weekly measurements. For regenerative
adsorbers, except those monitored with CEMS, you must conduct weekly
measurements of each adsorber bed outlet volatile organic compounds or
regulated materials concentration over the last 5 minutes of an
adsorption cycle using the methods and procedures in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section. If the measured concentration is greater than the
maximum normal concentration established in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, you must take corrective action, as specified in the
corrective action plan required in paragraph (e) of this section.
(1) You must measure the concentration using the method that you
used to establish the maximum normal concentration, and the method must
be one of the methods specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii)
of this section. You must use Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-1 to select the sampling location, which should be at the
centrally located 10-percent area of the stack or sample port cross-
section.
(i) Use chromatographic analysis by using Method 18 at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A. Calibrate the instrument following the procedures
described in EPA Method 18 using a calibration gas or gas mixture
containing the compounds present in the adsorber vent gas that can be
measured by the method.
(ii) Use a portable analyzer, in accordance with Method 21 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, for open-ended lines. Where EPA Method 21
uses the term ``leak definition,'' you must substitute the term
``maximum normal concentration.'' Calibrate the instrument following
the procedures described in EPA Method 21 using one of the calibration
gases specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) through (D) of this
section.
(A) A calibration gas or gas mixture representative of the normal
compound(s) present in the adsorber vent gas.
(B) Propane.
(C) Methane.
(D) Isobutylene.
(iii) Use a flame ionization analyzer by using Method 25A at 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A-7. Calibrate the instrument following the
procedures described in EPA Method 25A using propane.
(2) You must establish a maximum normal concentration for each
adsorber bed vent gas, as specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through
(iv) of this section.
(i) For each adsorber bed, measure the outlet volatile organic
compound or regulated material concentration weekly, as specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, during the last 5 minutes of the
adsorption cycle for at least 8 weeks. These measurements must be taken
within a 90-day time period.
(ii) Calculate the average outlet concentration for each adsorber
bed as the average of the outlet concentrations measured, as required
in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
(iii) Determine maximum normal concentration for each adsorber bed
as the 99th percentile confidence level using the one-sided z-statistic
test described in Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.138
Where:
P99 = 99th percentile confidence level pollutant
concentration in parts per million.
Mean = Arithmetic average of the volatile organic compound or
regulated material concentration in the adsorber vent gas,
calculated as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
SD = Standard deviation of the mean pollutant concentration,
calculated as specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
t = t distribution critical value for 99th percentile (0.01)
probability for the appropriate degrees of freedom (number of
samples minus one), as obtained from a Distribution Critical Value
Table. Use a value of 3 if you have 8 samples.
(iv) You must reestablish your maximum normal concentration for an
adsorber bed according to paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section each time you replace the adsorbent in an adsorber bed.
(e) Regenerative adsorber corrective action plan. For regenerative
adsorbers, except those monitored with CEMS, you must develop a
corrective action plan describing corrective actions to be taken and
the timing of those actions when a weekly measurement is above the
maximum normal concentration. The plan must specify that you will
initiate procedures to identify the cause and take corrective action no
later than 8 hours after the weekly measurement. Three consecutive
weekly measurements greater than the maximum normal concentration is a
deviation. Examples of corrective actions that could be included in
your plan are listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Analyze the adsorber inlet vent to determine if inlet
concentrations are in the expected range.
[[Page 18026]]
(2) Obtain samples at other locations in the system to determine if
conditions are normal.
(3) Verify the system temperatures, regeneration stream mass and
other operational parameters are within normal ranges.
(4) Test the operation of valves in the system, verify the valves
are working as intended and not allowing gas to pass through when
closed.
(5) Obtain a sample of the carbon to check for bed poisoning or
deterioration of the carbon.
(6) Replace the adsorbent in the adsorber bed with fresh adsorbent.
(f) Regenerative adsorber performance test. You must conduct a
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, unless
any of the general control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) are
used.
(g) Regenerative adsorber design evaluation. If a referencing
subpart allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a
performance test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must
meet the requirements of Sec. 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the
absorber meets the applicable emission limit, address the following
characteristics, as applicable. For an adsorption system that
regenerates the adsorber bed directly onsite in the control device,
such as a fixed-bed adsorber, the design evaluation must consider the
vent stream mass flow rate, vent stream composition and concentrations,
relative humidity, and temperature and must establish the design
exhaust vent stream organic compound concentration level, adsorption
cycle time, number and capacity of adsorber beds, type and working
capacity of adsorbent used for adsorber beds, design total regeneration
stream mass flow over the period of each complete adsorber bed
regeneration cycle, design adsorber bed temperature after regeneration,
design adsorber bed regeneration time and design service life of
adsorbent. For vacuum desorption, the lowest required vacuum level and
duration needed to assure regeneration of the beds must be considered.
(h) Regenerative adsorber performance test records. If you are
required to conduct a performance test, you must keep readily
accessible records of the data specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through
(5) of this section, as applicable, measured during each performance
test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829.
(1) For non-vacuum regenerative adsorbers, you must record the
total regeneration stream mass flow during each adsorber bed
regeneration cycle during the period of the performance test, and
temperature of the adsorber bed after each regeneration during the
period of the performance test (and within 15 minutes of completion of
any cooling cycle or cycles).
(2) For non-vacuum regeneration adsorbers, you must record the
adsorber bed temperature during regeneration, except for any
temperature regulating (cooling or warming to bring bed temperature
closer to vent gas temperature) portion of the regeneration cycle.
(3) For vacuum regenerative adsorbers, you must record the vacuum
profile over time during each regeneration cycle, and the period of
time the vacuum level is below the minimum target level during the
period of the performance test.
(4) You must record regeneration frequency and duration during the
period of the performance test.
(5) You must record the observations of the verification of the
adsorber operation during the period of the performance test.
(i) Regenerative adsorber monitoring records. You must keep the
records specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-
date and readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
and emissions required to be monitored under paragraph (b) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
(j) Regenerative adsorber other records. For regenerative
adsorbers, except those monitored with CEMS, you must also maintain
records, as specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The corrective action plan required in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(2) For the adsorber verification required in paragraph (c) of this
section, you must maintain daily records of the verification
inspections, including the visual observations and/or any activation of
an automated alarm or shutdown system with a written entry into a log
book or other permanent form of record.
(3) For the monitoring required in paragraph (d) of this section,
you must record the weekly volatile organic compound or regulated
material outlet concentration observed over the last 5 minutes of the
adsorption cycle for each adsorber bed.
(4) If the measured concentration obtained during the monitoring
required in paragraph (d) of this section is greater than the maximum
normal concentration for 3 consecutive weekly measurements, you must
keep a record of these periods, including the date of the third
measurement and the date and time when the concentration becomes less
than the maximum normal concentration, or when the adsorbent is
replaced.
(5) You must keep records of the measurements used to determine the
maximum normal concentrations established for each adsorber bed.
(6) You must keep records of the date and time the adsorbent is
replaced and which adsorbent bed was replaced.
Sec. 65.744 What monitoring requirements must I meet for non-
regenerative adsorbers?
(a) Non-regenerative adsorber monitoring. You must install the
monitoring equipment and meet the requirements specified for non-
regenerative adsorbers in either Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart.
Non-regenerative adsorbers include adsorbers that cannot be regenerated
and regenerative adsorbers that are regenerated offsite. For non-
regenerative adsorbers for which you have selected the monitoring
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must also comply with
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and you may reduce your monitoring
frequency according to paragraphs (a)(2) of this section.
(1) The first adsorber in series must be replaced immediately when
breakthrough, as defined in Sec. 65.295, is detected between the first
and second adsorber. The original second adsorber (or a fresh canister)
will become the new first adsorber and a fresh adsorber will become the
second adsorber. For purposes of this paragraph, ``immediately'' means
within 8 hours of the detection of a breakthrough for adsorbers of 55
gallons or less, and within 24 hours of the detection of a breakthrough
for adsorbers greater than 55 gallons.
(2) In lieu of the daily monitoring, as specified in Table 3 to
this subpart, you may reduce your monitoring frequency by establishing
the average adsorber bed life. To establish the average adsorber bed
life, you must conduct daily monitoring of the outlet volatile organic
compound or regulated material concentration of the first adsorber bed
in series until breakthrough, as defined in Sec. 65.295, occurs for
the first three adsorber bed change-outs. You must re-establish an
average adsorber bed life if you change the adsorbent brand or type,
[[Page 18027]]
or if any process changes are made that would lead to a lower bed
lifetime. You must measure the outlet concentration of volatile organic
compounds or outlet concentration of regulated material(s) in
accordance with Table 2 to this subpart. Once the average life of the
bed is determined, you may conduct ongoing monitoring, as specified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You may conduct monthly monitoring if the adsorbent has more
than 2 months of life remaining, based on the average adsorber bed
life, as established in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the date
the adsorbent was last replaced.
(ii) You may conduct weekly monitoring if the adsorbent has more
than 2 weeks of life remaining, based on the average adsorber bed life,
established in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and the date the
adsorbent was last replaced.
(b) Non-regenerative adsorber performance test. You must conduct a
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, unless
any of the general control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) are
used.
(c) Non-regenerative adsorber design evaluation. If a referencing
subpart allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a
performance test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must
meet the requirements of Sec. 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the
absorber meets the applicable emission limit, address the following
characteristics, as applicable. For an adsorption system that does not
regenerate the adsorber bed directly on site in the control device,
such as a carbon canister, the design evaluation must consider the vent
stream mass flow rate, vent stream composition and concentrations,
relative humidity and temperature and must establish the design exhaust
vent stream organic compound concentration level, capacity of adsorber
bed, type and working capacity of adsorbent used for the adsorber bed
and design adsorbent replacement interval, based on the total adsorbent
working capacity of the control device and source operating schedule.
(d) Non-regenerative adsorber performance test records. If you are
required to conduct a performance test, you must keep readily
accessible records of the outlet volatile organic compound or regulated
material concentration for each adsorber bed, as provided in Table 2 to
this subpart, measured during each performance test conducted, pursuant
to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829. You must also keep records of the
date and time you last replaced the adsorbent.
(e) Non-regenerative adsorber monitoring records. You must keep the
records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-
date and readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
(f) Non-regenerative adsorber other records. For non-regenerative
adsorbers for which you have selected the monitoring specified in Table
2 to this subpart, you must also maintain records, as specified in
paragraph (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Records of the date and time you replace the adsorbent.
(2) If you conduct monitoring less frequently than daily, as
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must record the average life
of the bed.
Sec. 65.746 What requirements must I meet for condensers?
(a) Condenser monitoring. You must install the monitoring equipment
and meet the requirements specified for condensers in either Table 1 or
Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) Condenser performance test. You are not required to conduct a
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, unless
required by a referencing subpart. Instead, you must conduct a design
evaluation, as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, unless you
choose to use a CEMS meeting the requirements in Sec. 65.711 to
monitor the performance of the condenser.
(c) Condenser design evaluation. If you chose to do a design
evaluation in lieu of using CEMS meeting the requirements in Sec.
65.711, you must meet the requirements of Sec. 65.850 and, in
demonstrating that the condenser meets the applicable emission limit,
address the characteristics specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of
this section, as applicable.
(1) The design evaluation must consider the vent stream flow rate,
relative humidity, temperature and conditions under which entrainment
of the condensing liquid could occur, and must establish the design
outlet organic regulated material compound concentration level, design
average temperature of the condenser exhaust vent stream and the design
average temperatures of the coolant fluid at the condenser inlet and
outlet.
(2) You must establish your operating limit for temperature of the
condensate receiver and calculate the resulting regulated material
concentration using the methodologies in Sec. 65.835(d) to demonstrate
compliance with the emissions standard of the referencing subpart.
(d) Condenser monitoring records. You must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and
readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
(e) Condenser other records. If you chose to do a design evaluation
in lieu of using CEMS meeting the requirements in Sec. 65.711, you
must calculate and record the regulated material concentration using
continuous and direct measurements of the condensate receiver
temperature and the methodology in Sec. 65.835(d).
Sec. 65.748 What requirements must I meet for biofilters?
(a) Biofilter monitoring. You must install the monitoring equipment
and meet the requirements specified for biofilters in either Table 1 or
Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) Biofilter performance test. You must conduct a performance
test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, and paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section, unless one of the provisions in
paragraph (c) of this section is met.
(1) The operating temperature limit must be based on only the
temperatures measured during the performance test; these data may not
be supplemented by engineering assessments or manufacturer's
recommendations, as otherwise allowed in Sec. 65.713(a).
(2) You may expand the biofilter bed temperature operating limit by
conducting a repeat performance test that demonstrates compliance with
the percent reduction requirement or outlet concentration limit, as
applicable.
(3) You must conduct a repeat performance test using the applicable
methods specified in Sec. 65.825 within 2 years following the previous
[[Page 18028]]
performance test and within 150 days after each replacement of any
portion of the biofilter bed media with a different type of media or
each replacement of more than 50 percent (by volume) of the biofilter
bed media with the same type of media.
(c) Biofilter performance test exemptions. You are not required to
conduct a performance test if any of the general control measures
specified in Sec. 65.702(e) are used. If the operating limit is
established using data from previous performance tests in accordance
with Sec. 65.702(e)(4), replacement of the biofilter media with the
same type of media is not considered a process change and would not
require a new performance test; however, you are still subject to the
repeat performance test requirements, as specified in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section.
(d) Biofilter design evaluation. If a referencing subpart allows
you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance test, and
you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the requirements of
Sec. 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the biofilter meets the
applicable emission limit, address the characteristics specified in the
referencing subpart.
(e) Biofilter performance test records. If you are required to
conduct a performance test, you must record the biofilter bed
temperature and moisture content, and the pressure drop through the
biofilter bed measured during each performance test conducted, pursuant
to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829. You must record the biofilter bed
temperature, moisture content and the pressure drop through the
biofilter bed at least every 15 minutes and average these operating
parameters over each run of the performance test.
(f) Biofilter monitoring records. You must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and
readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (a) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
Sec. 65.760 What requirements must I meet for sorbent injection and
collection systems?
(a) General. If you use sorbent injection as an emission control
technique, you must operate the sorbent injection system in accordance
with this section. You must also meet the requirements in Sec. 65.762
for the fabric filters used for sorbent collection.
(b) Sorbent injection monitoring. You must install the monitoring
equipment and meet the requirements specified for sorbent injection in
either Table 1 or Table 2 to this subpart.
(c) Sorbent injection performance test. You must conduct a
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, and
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, unless one of the general
control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) is used. A performance
test conducted to meet the requirements of this section also satisfies
the performance test requirements of Sec. 65.762(b) provided that you
monitor and record the appropriate fabric filter operating parameters
during the performance test.
(1) You must conduct the performance test at the outlet of the
fabric filter used for sorbent collection.
(2) If the sorbent is replaced with a different brand and type of
sorbent that was used during the performance test, you must conduct a
new performance test.
(d) Sorbent injection design evaluation. If a referencing subpart
allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance
test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the
requirements of Sec. 65.850 and, in demonstrating that the sorbent
injection system meets the applicable emission limit, address the
characteristics specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section,
as applicable.
(1) For a sorbent injection system, the design evaluation must
consider the vent stream flow rate and temperature, levels of regulated
materials to be adsorbed in the vent stream, sorbent type and brand,
sorbent mass injection rate, sorbent injection carrier gas system,
design of the injection system, location of sorbent injection site,
downstream collection device (fabric filter or other device to capture
the sorbent), residence time of the gas-sorbent mixture and contact
characteristics of the gas-sorbent mixture.
(2) For a sorbent injection system that is controlling dioxins,
furans, total hazardous air pollutants (HAP) or total organic HAP, as
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must consider the temperature
in the combustion device and in any particulate control devices
upstream of injection system.
(e) Sorbent injection performance test records. If you are required
to conduct a performance test, you must keep readily accessible records
of the data specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, as
applicable, measured during each performance test conducted, pursuant
to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829.
(1) Record the brand and type of sorbent used during the
performance test.
(2) If you have chosen to monitor operating parameters in Table 2
to this subpart, you must record the parameters, as specified in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) Record the rate of sorbent injection measured during the
performance test at least every 15 minutes and average the injection
rate over each run of the performance test.
(ii) Record the carrier gas flow rate measured during the
performance test at least every 15 minutes and average the flow rate
over each run of the performance test.
(iii) Record the temperature downstream of the combustion device
and/or downstream of any particulate control devices, as applicable,
measured during the performance test. Record the temperature(s) at
least every 15 minutes and average the temperature(s) over each run of
the performance test.
(f) Sorbent injection monitoring records. You must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and
readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) Continuous records of the control device operating parameters
or emissions specified to be monitored under paragraph (b) of this
section, as applicable.
(2) Records of the daily average value, or for batch operations,
operating block average value, of each continuously monitored operating
parameter or records of continuous emissions according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 65.860(a).
(g) Sorbent injection other records. You must keep records of the
type and brand of sorbent used. If the type or brand of sorbent is
changed, you must record the date the sorbent was changed, and maintain
documentation that the substitute will provide the same or better level
of control as the original sorbent.
[[Page 18029]]
Sec. 65.762 What requirements must I meet for fabric filters?
(a) Fabric filter monitoring. You must equip fabric filters with a
bag leak detection system that is installed, calibrated, maintained and
continuously operated according to the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (10) of this section. Monitoring systems associated with
bag leak detection are also subject to the requirements of Sec.
65.710.
(1) Install a bag leak detection sensor(s) in a position(s) that
will be representative of the relative or absolute particulate matter
loadings for each exhaust stack, roof vent or compartment (e.g., for a
positive pressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter.
(2) Use a bag leak detection system certified by the manufacturer
to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 1 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains
per actual cubic foot) or less.
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bag leak detection
system in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section and consistent
with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 65.265).
(4) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a device to
continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(5) Use a bag leak detection system equipped with a system that
will sound an alarm when an increase in relative particulate material
emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located
such that the alert is observed readily by plan operating personnel.
(6) Install a bag leak detection system in each compartment or cell
for positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct all
compartments or cells to a common stack. Install a bag leak detector
downstream of the fabric filter if a negative pressure or induced air
filter is used. If multiple bag leak detectors are required, the
system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(7) Calibration of the bag leak detection system must, at a
minimum, consist of establishing the baseline output level by adjusting
the range and the averaging period of the device and establishing the
alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(8) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points or alarm delay
time, except as established in a CPMS monitoring plan required in Sec.
65.712 and paragraph (e)(1) of this section. In no event may the
sensitivity be increased more than 100 percent or decreased by more
than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such adjustment follows a
complete baghouse inspection that demonstrates the baghouse is in good
operating condition.
(9) Each bag leak detection system must be operated and maintained
such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period. If the alarm sounds more than 5 percent
of the operating time during a 6-month period, it is considered an
operating parameter exceedance and, therefore, a deviation, as
specified in Sec. 65.710(e)(2). You must calculate the alarm time, as
specified in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) If inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted.
(ii) If corrective action is required, each alarm time is counted
as a minimum of 1 hour.
(iii) If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action,
each alarm time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is counted as the
actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action.
(iv) Your maximum alarm time is equal to 5 percent of the operating
time during a 6-month period.
(10) If the alarm on a bag leak detection system is triggered, you
must, within 1 hour of an alarm, initiate procedures to identify the
cause of the alarm and take corrective action, as specified in the
corrective action plan required in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(b) Fabric filter performance test. You must conduct a performance
test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, unless one of the
general control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) is used. A
performance test conducted to meet the requirements of this section
also satisfies the performance test requirements of Sec. 65.760(c)
provided that Sec. 65.760(c)(1) and (2) are followed and the
appropriate sorbent injection operating parameters are monitored and
recorded.
(c) Fabric filter design evaluation. If a referencing subpart
allows you to conduct a design evaluation in lieu of a performance
test, and you chose to do a design evaluation, you must meet the
requirements of Sec. 65.850. The design evaluation must include the
pressure drop through the device and the ratio of volumetric gas flow
to surface area of the cloth.
(d) Fabric filter performance test records. You must document the
bag leak detection system's sensitivity to detecting changes in
particulate matter emissions, range, averaging period and alarm set
points during each performance test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec.
65.820 through 65.829.
(e) Fabric filter monitoring records. For each bag leak detector
used to monitor regulated material emissions from a fabric filter, you
must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) A CPMS monitoring plan, as specified in Sec. 65.712. You must
also include performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations) in your CPMS monitoring plan, including how the
alarm set-point will be established.
(2) A corrective action plan describing corrective actions to be
taken and the timing of those actions when the bag leak detection alarm
sounds. You must initiate corrective action no later than 48 hours
after a bag leak detection system alarm. Failure to take action within
the prescribed time period is considered a deviation. Corrective
actions may include, but are not limited to, the actions listed in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other conditions that may cause an increase in
regulated material emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise fixing
the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
fixing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the regulated material
emissions.
(3) Records of any bag leak detection system alarm, including the
date, time, duration and the percent of the total operating time during
each 6-month period that the alarm sounds, with a brief explanation of
the cause of the alarm, the corrective action taken and the schedule
and duration of the corrective action.
(f) You must submit analyses and supporting documentation
demonstrating conformance with EPA-454/R-98-015 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 65.265) and specifications for bag leak detection
systems as part of the Notification of Compliance Status Report, as
required, pursuant to Sec. 65.880(f).
Sec. 65.800 What requirements must I meet for other control devices?
(a) Other control device monitoring. If you use a control device
other than those listed in this subpart, you must
[[Page 18030]]
meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must submit to the Administrator for approval the planned
operating parameters to be monitored, and the recordkeeping and
reporting procedures, as specified in Sec. 65.884(h). You must also
include a rationale for the proposed monitoring in your submittal. The
Administrator will approve, deny or modify the proposed monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements as part of the review of the
plan or through the review of the permit application or by other
appropriate means.
(2) If you receive approval from the Administrator for the
information required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you must then
establish an operating limit for the operating parameters that
indicates proper operation of the control device. The information
required in Sec. 65.880(d) must be submitted in the Notification of
Compliance Status Report. The operating limit may be based upon a prior
performance test meeting the specifications of Sec. 65.702(e)(4).
(b) Other control device performance test. You must conduct a
performance test, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, as
applicable, unless any of the general control measures specified in
Sec. 65.702(e) are used.
(c) Other control device performance test records. If you are
required to conduct a performance test, you must keep readily
accessible records of the approved operating parameters, as established
in paragraph (a) of this section measured during the performance test
and any other records as may be necessary to determine the conditions
of the performance test conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820
through 65.829.
(d) Other control device records. You must keep the records
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section up-to-date and
readily accessible, as applicable.
(1) You must keep records of the operating parameter(s) monitored,
pursuant to the approved plan established in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(2) Records of flow/no flow, as provided in Sec. 65.860(i).
Performance Testing
Sec. 65.820 What are the performance testing requirements?
For each control device for which a performance test is required,
you must conduct a performance test according to the schedule specified
by the referencing subpart and the procedures in this section
Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, as applicable, unless any of the
general control measures specified in Sec. 65.702(e) are used. For all
performance tests, a notification of the performance test and a
performance test plan are also required, as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section. You must also provide the performance
testing facilities, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(a) Notification of performance test. You must notify the
Administrator of your intention to conduct a performance test, as
specified in Sec. 65.884(a).
(b) Performance test plan. Before conducting a required performance
test, you must develop and submit a performance test plan to the
Administrator for approval. The test plan must include a test program
summary, the test schedule, data quality objectives and both an
internal and external quality assurance program. Data quality
objectives are the pretest expectations of precision, accuracy and
completeness of data, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
(1) The internal quality assurance program must include, at a
minimum, the activities planned by routine operators and analysts to
provide an assessment of test data bias and precision; an example of
internal quality assurance to measure precision is the sampling and
analysis of replicate samples.
(2) You must perform a test method performance audit during the
performance test, as specified in Sec. 60.8(g), Sec. 61.13(e), or
Sec. 63.7(c)(2)(iii) of this chapter.
(3) You must submit the performance test plan to the Administrator
at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to
take place, that is, simultaneously with the notification of intention
to conduct a performance test required under paragraph (a) of this
section, or on a mutually agreed upon date.
(4) The Administrator may request additional relevant information
after the submittal of a performance test plan.
(5) If you would like to use an alternative test method or a change
to a test method, you must follow the requirements of Sec. 65.250,
except for minor test method changes. You may propose minor test method
changes in your performance test plan. Approval of the test plan is
approval of any minor test method changes included in the test plan.
(c) Approval of performance test plan.
(1) The Administrator will notify you of approval or intention to
deny approval of the performance test plan within 30 calendar days
after receipt of the original plan and within 30 calendar days after
receipt of any supplementary information that is submitted under
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. An intention to disapprove the
plan will include the information provided in (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section and will be provided to you before the Administrator
disapproves a performance test plan.
(i) Notice of the information and findings on which the intended
disapproval is based.
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present, within 30 calendar
days after you have been notified of the intended disapproval,
additional information to the Administrator before final action on the
plan.
(2) If the Administrator does not approve or disapprove the
performance test plan within the time period specified in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, then you must conduct the performance test
within the time specified in this subpart using the specified method(s)
and any minor changes to the test methods proposed in the test plan.
(d) Performance testing facilities. If required to do performance
testing, you must provide performance testing facilities, as specified
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Sampling ports adequate for the applicable test methods,
including meeting the provisions of paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this section, as applicable.
(i) Constructing the air pollution control system such that
volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be accurately
determined by applicable test methods and procedures; and
(ii) Providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic flow during
performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test methods and
procedures.
(2) Safe sampling platform(s).
(3) Safe access to sampling platform(s).
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(5) Any other facilities that the Administrator deems necessary for
safe and adequate testing of a source.
Sec. 65.821 At what process conditions must I conduct performance
testing?
You must conduct performance tests under the conditions specified
in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, as applicable, unless
the Administrator specifies or approves alternate operating conditions.
Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records
as may be
[[Page 18031]]
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests performed,
pursuant to this section.
(a) Continuous process operations. For continuous process
operations, you must conduct all performance tests at maximum
representative operating conditions for the process.
(b) Batch process operations. For batch process operations, testing
must be conducted at absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical
worst-case conditions, as specified in Sec. 65.822.
(c) Combination of both continuous and batch unit operations. For
combined continuous and batch process operations, you must conduct
performance tests when the batch process operations are operating at
absolute worst-case conditions or hypothetical worst-case conditions,
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and the continuous
process operations are operating at maximum representative operating
conditions for the process, as specified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(d) You must not conduct a performance test during startup,
shutdown, periods when the control device is bypassed or periods when
the process, monitoring equipment or control device is not operating
properly.
Sec. 65.822 At what process conditions must I conduct performance
testing for batch process operations?
If you choose to conduct testing at absolute worst-case conditions
for batch process operations, you must characterize the conditions by
the criteria presented in paragraph (a) of this section. If you choose
to conduct testing at hypothetical worst-case conditions for batch
process operations, you must characterize the conditions by the
criteria presented in paragraph (b) of this section. In all cases, a
performance test plan must be submitted to the Administrator for
approval prior to testing in accordance with Sec. 65.820(a) through
(d). The performance test plan must include the emission profile
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(a) Absolute worst-case conditions. You must consider all relevant
factors, including load and compound-specific characteristics, in
defining absolute worst-case conditions. Absolute worst-case conditions
are defined by the criteria presented in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of
this section if the maximum load is the most challenging condition for
the control device. Otherwise, absolute worst-case conditions are
defined by paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(1) The period in which the inlet to the control device will
contain the maximum projected regulated material load and will always
contain at least 50 percent of the maximum regulated material load (in
pounds) capable of being vented to the control device over any 8-hour
period. An emission profile, as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, must be used to identify the 8-hour period that includes the
maximum projected regulated material load.
(2) A 1-hour period of time in which the inlet to the control
device will contain the highest regulated material mass loading rate,
in lb/hr, capable of being vented to the control device. An emission
profile, as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, must be used
to identify the 1-hour period of maximum regulated material loading.
(3) The period of time when the regulated material loading or
stream composition (including non-regulated material) is most
challenging for the control device. These conditions include, but are
not limited to, paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Periods when the stream contains the highest combined regulated
material load, in lb/hr, described by the emission profiles in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) Periods when the stream contains regulated material
constituents that approach limits of solubility for scrubbing media.
(iii) Periods when the stream contains regulated material
constituents that approach limits of adsorptivity for adsorption
systems.
(b) Hypothetical worst-case conditions. Hypothetical worst-case
conditions are simulated test conditions that, at a minimum, contain
the highest hourly regulated material load of emissions that would be
predicted to be vented to the control device from the emissions profile
described in paragraphs (c)(2) or (3) of this section.
(c) Emission profile. For batch process operations, you must
develop an emission profile for the vent to the control device that
describes the characteristics of the vent stream at the inlet to the
control device under worst-case conditions. The emission profile is an
analysis of regulated material emissions versus time and must be
developed, based on any one of the procedures described in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Emission profile by process. The emission profile by process
must consider all emission episodes (for example, but not limited to,
vessel filling, empty vessel purging, gas sweep of a partially filled
vessel, vacuum operations, gas evolution, depressurization, heating and
evaporation) that could contribute to the vent stack for a period of
time that is sufficient to include all processes venting to the stack
and must consider production scheduling. The emission profile by
process must describe the regulated material load to the device that
equals the highest sum of emissions from the episodes that can vent to
the control device in any given hour. Emissions per episode must be
calculated using the procedures specified in Sec. 65.835(b).
(2) Emission profile by process equipment. The emission profile by
process equipment must consist of emissions that meet or exceed the
highest emissions, in lb/hr, that would be expected under actual
processing conditions. The emission profile by process equipment must
describe component configurations used to generate the emission events,
volatility of materials processed in the process equipment and the
rationale used to identify and characterize the emission events. The
emissions may be based on using a compound more volatile than compounds
actually used in the process(es), and the emissions may be generated
from all process equipment in the process(es) or only selected process
equipment.
(3) Emission profile by capture and control device limitation. The
emission profile by capture and control device must consider the
capture and control system limitations and the highest emissions, in
lb/hr, that can be routed to the control device, based on maximum flow
rate and concentrations possible because of limitations on conveyance
and control components (e.g., fans and lower explosive level alarms).
Sec. 65.823 How do I sample from vent streams?
You must conduct the applicable sampling, as specified in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) You must use Method 1 or 1A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1, as
appropriate, to select the sampling sites.
(1) For determination of compliance with a percent reduction
requirement of regulated material or total organic compounds, sampling
sites must be located at the outlet of the control device, and with the
exception noted in Sec. 65.724(b)(2), the control device inlet
sampling site must be located at the exit from the unit operation
before any control device.
(2) For determining compliance with a ppmv total regulated material
or total organic compounds emissions limit in a referencing subpart,
the sampling site
[[Page 18032]]
must be located at the outlet of the control device.
(3) For determining compliance with an emission limit requirement
of a vent stream halogen atom mass emission rate prior to a combustion
device, or to demonstrate that a vent stream is not halogenated,
pursuant to Sec. 65.702(c), collect samples prior to the combustion
device.
(b) For determining compliance with percent reduction emission
limits, you must collect samples simultaneously at the inlet and outlet
of the control device during the performance test.
(c) For correcting concentrations to specified percent oxygen, the
sampling site for the measurement of oxygen concentration must be the
same as that of the regulated material samples, and the samples must be
taken concurrently.
(d) For each test run, you must take either real-time measurements,
an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples per hour. If
grab sampling is used, then the samples must be taken at approximately
equal intervals in time, such as 15-minute intervals during the run.
Sec. 65.824 What is the performance test duration?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for
continuous process operations, a performance test must consist of three
runs of at least 1 hour in length; and must be conducted under the
conditions specified in Sec. 65.821(a).
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for batch
process operations, a performance test must consist of three runs; and
must be conducted under the conditions specified in Sec. 65.821(b).
Each run must occur over the same absolute or hypothetical worst-case
conditions, as defined in Sec. 65.822, and be tested over the length
of the episode, at a minimum of 1 hour and not to exceed 8 hours.
(c) For control devices used to control emissions from transfer
racks (except low throughput transfer racks that are capable of
continuous vapor processing, but do not handle continuous emissions or
multiple loading arms of a transfer rack that load simultaneously),
each run must represent at least one complete tank truck or tank car
loading period, during which regulated materials are loaded.
Sec. 65.825 What performance test methods do I use?
You must conduct the performance test using the applicable test
methods and procedures specified in Table 5 to this subpart and
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, as applicable, unless you
request an alternative test method or a change to a test method, as
specified in Sec. 65.250.
(a) If you use ASTM D6420-99(2010), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 65.265) in lieu of Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or
Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A to measure specific organic
regulated material compound concentration, as applicable, at the inlet
and/or outlet of a control device, then you must meet the conditions
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) The target compound(s) must be listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM
D6420-99 (2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265), and the
target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by volume and 100
ppmv.
(2) If one (or more) target compound(s) is not listed in Section
1.1 of ASTM D6420-99 (2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination
of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-
Mass Spectrometry'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265), but
is potentially detected by mass spectrometry, an additional system
continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in Section
10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, must be followed, met, documented and
submitted with the performance test report, even if a moisture
condenser is not used or the compound is not considered soluble.
(3) A minimum of one sample/analysis cycle must completed at least
every 15 minutes.
(b) If using Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to
determine compliance with a total organic compounds outlet
concentration or percent reduction limit specified in a referencing
subpart, you must follow the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Calibrate the instrument on propane.
(2) When demonstrating compliance with an outlet concentration
emission limit specified in the referencing subpart, you must use a
span value of the analyzer between 1.5 and 2.5 times the applicable
emission limit in the referencing subpart. When demonstrating
compliance with a percent reduction by making measurements at the inlet
and outlet of the control device, you must use a span value of the
analyzer of between 1.5 and 2.5 times the highest expected total
organic compounds concentration at each location.
(3) Report the results as carbon, calculated according to Equation
25A-1 of Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7.
(c) If you are using Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A,
pursuant to Table 5 to this subpart, you must follow the validation
procedure of section 13.0 of EPA Method 320 unless the validation
procedure was conducted at another source and it can be shown that the
exhaust gas characteristics are similar at both sources. When
demonstrating compliance with an emission limit for hydrogen halides
and halogens, EPA Method 320 may only be used if you can show that
there are no diatomic halogen molecules present in the vent stream
being tested.
(d) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device
contains formaldehyde, you must conduct emissions testing according to
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you elect to comply with a percent reduction requirement and
formaldehyde is the principal regulated material compound (i.e., the
highest concentration for any regulated compound in the stream by
volume), you must use Method 320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to
measure formaldehyde at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
unless the vent stream being tested has entrained water droplets. If
the vent stream contains entrained water droplets, you must use EPA
Method 316 instead of EPA Method 320 to measure formaldehyde
concentration. Use the percent reduction in formaldehyde as a surrogate
for the percent reduction in total regulated material emissions.
(2) If you elect to comply with an outlet total organic regulated
material concentration or total organic compounds concentration limit,
and the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device contains
greater than 10 percent (by volume) formaldehyde, you must use Method
320 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to determine the formaldehyde
concentration, unless the vent stream being tested has entrained water
droplets. If the vent stream contains entrained water droplets, you
must use EPA Method 316 instead of EPA Method 320 to measure
formaldehyde concentration. Calculate the total organic regulated
material concentration or total organic compounds concentration by
totaling the formaldehyde emissions measured using EPA Method 316 or
EPA Method 320 and the other regulated material
[[Page 18033]]
compound emissions measured using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A-6, Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, EPA Method 320 or ASTM
D6420-99(2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous
Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265).
(e) If the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device
contains carbon disulfide, you must conduct emissions testing according
to paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If you elect to comply with a percent reduction requirement and
carbon disulfide is the principal regulated material compound (i.e.,
the highest concentration for any regulated compound in the stream by
volume), you must use Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or
Method 15 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-5, to measure carbon disulfide
at the inlet and outlet of the control device. Use the percent
reduction in carbon disulfide as a surrogate for the percent reduction
in total regulated material emissions.
(2) If you elect to comply with an outlet total organic regulated
material concentration or total organic compounds concentration limit,
and the uncontrolled or inlet gas stream to the control device contains
greater than 10 percent (by volume) carbon disulfide, you must use
Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 or Method 15 at 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-5, to determine the carbon disulfide concentration.
Calculate the total organic regulated material concentration or total
organic compounds concentration by totaling the carbon disulfide
emissions measured using Method 15 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-5 or
Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-6 and the other regulated
material compound emissions measured using Method 18 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-6, or Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, Method 320
at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A or ASTM D6420-99(2010), ``Standard Test
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 65.265), as applicable.
(f) You must not use Method 26 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, to
test gas streams with entrained water droplets.
Sec. 65.826 How do I calculate emissions in parts per million by
volume concentration?
Use the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section to
calculate ppmv concentration. The calculated concentration must be
corrected to a standard percent oxygen, if required by the referencing
subpart, using the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(a) Concentration calculation. The concentration of either total
organic compounds (minus methane or ethane) or total organic regulated
material must be calculated according to paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of
this section.
(1) The total organic compounds concentration (CTOC) is the sum of
the concentrations of the individual components and must be computed
for each run using Equation 2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.139
Where:
CTOC = Concentration of total organic compounds (minus
methane and ethane), dry basis, ppmv.
x = Number of samples in the sample run.
n = Number of components in the sample.
Cji = Concentration of sample component j (where j is not
methane or ethane) of sample i, dry basis, ppmv.
(2) You must compute the total organic regulated material (CREG)
according to Equation 2 of this section except that you need only sum
the regulated species.
(b) Concentration correction calculation. If a referencing subpart
requires the concentration of total organic compounds or organic
regulated material to be corrected to standard oxygen, the correction
must be made, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. For
batch process operations, you must correct the concentration for
supplemental gases, as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Determine the concentration corrected to a standard percent
oxygen (Cc) specified by the referencing subpart, using Equation 3 of
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.140
Where:
Cc = Concentration of total organic compounds or organic
regulated material corrected to a standard percent oxygen, dry
basis, ppmv.
CTOC = Concentration of total organic compounds (minus
methane and ethane) or organic regulated material, dry basis, ppmv.
%O2s = Concentration of oxygen specified by the
referencing subpart, percentage by volume.
%O2d = Measured concentration of oxygen, dry basis,
percentage by volume.
(2) For batch process operations, correct the measured
concentration for any supplemental gases using Equation 4 of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.141
[[Page 18034]]
Where:
Ca = Corrected outlet concentration of regulated
material, dry basis, ppmv.
Cm = Actual concentration of regulated material measured
at control device outlet, dry basis, ppmv.
Qa = Total volumetric flow rate of all gas streams vented
to the control device, except supplemental gases, cubic meters per
minute.
Qs = Total volumetric flow rate of supplemental gases,
cubic meters per minute.
Sec. 65.827 How do I demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction
requirement?
(a) To demonstrate compliance with a percent reduction requirement
for a control device specified in a referencing subpart, you must
comply with Sec. 65.828.
(b) To meet a process aggregated percent reduction emission
requirement specified in a referencing subpart for a batch process, you
must follow the provisions, as specified in Sec. 65.835.
(c) For combined streams of continuous and batch process operations
subject to a process aggregated percent reduction emission requirement
in a referencing subpart, you must demonstrate that the control device
meets the percent reduction requirements for both batch and continuous
process operations by following the provisions specified in Sec. Sec.
65.828 and 65.835.
Sec. 65.828 How do I determine percent reduction?
To determine a percent reduction for a control device, you must use
the procedures specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. For
small boilers and process heaters, you must follow the provisions of
Sec. 65.724(b)(1) and (2).
(a) Mass rate of total organic compounds or regulated material.
Compute the mass rate of either total organic compounds (minus methane
and ethane) or regulated material (Ei, Eo), as
applicable. Use Equations 5 and 6 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.142
Where:
Ei, Eo = Emission rate of total organic
compounds (minus methane and ethane) or emission rate of regulated
material in the sample at the inlet and outlet of the control
device, respectively, dry basis, kilogram per hour.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (ppmv)-1 (g-mol
per standard cubic meter) (kilogram per gram) (minute per hour),
where standard temperature is 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees
Fahrenheit).
N = Number of compounds in the sample.
Cij, Coj = Concentration on a dry basis of
organic compound j (where j is not methane or ethane) in ppmv of the
gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively. If the total organic compounds emission rate is being
calculated, Cij and Coj include all organic
compounds measured minus methane and ethane; if the regulated
material emissions rate is being calculated, all organic regulated
material are included.
Mij, Moj = Molecular weight of compound j,
gram per g-mol, of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the
control device, respectively.
Qi, Qo = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard
cubic meter per minute, at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius (68
degrees Fahrenheit), at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively.
(b) Percent reduction in total organic compounds or regulated
material. Determine the percent reduction in total organic compounds
(minus methane and ethane) or regulated material using Equation 7 of
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.143
Where:
R = Control efficiency of control device, percent.
Ei = Mass rate of total organic compounds (minus methane
and ethane) or regulated material at the inlet to the control device
as calculated under paragraph (a) of this section, kilograms total
organic compounds per hour or kilograms regulated material per hour.
Eo = Mass rate of total organic compounds (minus methane
and ethane) or regulated material at the outlet of the control
device, as calculated under paragraph (a) of this section, kilograms
total organic compounds per hour or kilograms regulated material per
hour.
Sec. 65.829 How do I demonstrate compliance with a hydrogen halide
and halogen emission limit specified in a referencing subpart?
You must conduct a performance test, pursuant to Sec. 65.820, and
follow the procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, as
applicable, when determining compliance with a hydrogen halide and
halogen emission limit specified in a referencing subpart.
(a) To determine compliance with a halogen atom mass emission rate
emission limit requirement, you must use Equation 8 of this section to
calculate the mass emission rate of halogen atoms:
[[Page 18035]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.144
Where:
E = Mass of halogen atoms, dry basis, kilogram per hour.
K2 = Constant, 2.494 x 10-6(ppmv)-1
(g-mol per standard cubic meter) (kilogram per gram) (minute per
hour), where standard temperature is 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees
Fahrenheit).
Q = Flow rate of gas stream, dry standard cubic meters per minute,
determined according to an engineering assessment, as specified in
Sec. 65.830 or, pursuant to Table 5 to this subpart.
n = Number of halogenated compounds j in the gas stream.
m = Number of different halogens i in each compound j of the gas
stream.
j = Halogenated compound in the gas stream.
i = Halogen atom in compound j of the gas stream.
Cj = Concentration of halogenated compound j in the gas
stream, dry basis, ppmv.
Lji = Number of atoms of halogen i in compound j of the
gas stream.
Mji = Molecular weight of halogen atom i in compound j of
the gas stream, kilogram per kilogram-mol.
(b) Calculate the mass emissions rate of each hydrogen halide and
halogen compound as the summation of the measured concentrations and
the gas stream flow rate, as shown in Equations 9 and 10 of this
section. To determine compliance with an outlet mass emission rate
limit specified in a referencing subpart, only Equation 10 is required.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.145
Where:
Ei, Eo = Total mass rate of hydrogen halide
and halogen compounds, in kilograms per hour.
K = 6 x 10-5, Conversion factor of milligrams per minute to
kilograms per hour.
Cij, Coj = Concentration of each hydrogen
halide and halogen compound in the gas stream, in milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively.
Qi, Qo = Vent stream flow rate, dry standard
cubic meter per minute, at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius (68
degrees Fahrenheit), at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
respectively.
(c) Calculate the percent reduction of hydrogen halide and halogen
compounds using the inlet and outlet mass emission rates calculated in
paragraph (b) of this section and Equation 7 of this section.
(d) To demonstrate compliance with a mass rate (e.g., kilogram per
hour) outlet emission limit, the test results must show that the mass
emission rate of total hydrogen halides and halogens measured at the
outlet of the absorber or other halogen reduction device is below the
mass rate outlet emission limit specified in a referencing subpart.
Sec. 65.830 When can an engineering assessment be used and what does
it include?
(a) You may conduct an engineering assessment if you perform any of
the actions described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Determine whether a vent stream is halogenated, as specified in
Sec. 65.702(c)(2).
(2) Supplement your performance test, as specified in Sec.
65.713(a).
(3) Establish your operating limit on ranges or limits previously
established under a referencing subpart, as specified in Sec.
65.713(d).
(4) Determine flow rate of a gas stream, as specified in Equation 8
of Sec. 65.829(a).
(5) Calculate regulated material emissions for each emission
episode that is not described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II:
Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265), as specified
in Sec. 65.835(b)(2) or Sec. 65.835(d)(3).
(6) Calculate regulated material emissions for each emission
episode that you can demonstrate to the Administrator that the emission
estimation techniques in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265) are not appropriate, as
specified in Sec. 65.835(e).
(b) An engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices at the process unit.
(2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(3) Maximum flow rate, regulated material emission rate,
concentration or other relevant parameter specified or implied within a
permit limit applicable to the vent stream.
(4) Design analysis, based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to, the methods specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii)
of this section.
(i) Use of material balances, based on process stoichiometry to
estimate maximum organic regulated material concentrations.
(ii) Estimation of maximum flow rate, based on physical process
equipment design such as pump or blower capacities.
(iii) Estimation of regulated material concentrations, based on
saturation conditions.
Batch Emission Calculations
Sec. 65.835 What emissions calculations must I use for batch process
operations for purposes of compliance with an aggregated percent
reduction?
(a) General. To demonstrate compliance with a process aggregated
percent reduction emission limit in a referencing subpart for batch
process operations, including batch process operations in combined
streams of continuous and batch unit operations, you must compare the
sums of the controlled and uncontrolled emissions for the batch vent
streams subject to control within the process, and show that the
specified reduction is met. The emission reduction must be calculated
as shown in Equation 11 of this section using parameters from Equations
12 and 13 of this section.
[[Page 18036]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.146
Where:
Eu = Uncontrolled emissions for batch vent streams.
Ec = Controlled emissions for batch vent streams.
Ei = Uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode, as
determined, pursuant to Sec. 65.835(b).
i = Each emission episode that applies to the batch process (for
example, but not limited to, vessel filling, empty vessel purging,
gas sweep of a partially filled vessel, vacuum operations, gas
evolution, depressurization, heating and evaporation).
Di = Controlled emissions for each emission episode from
a condenser, as determined, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section.
Zi = Emission percent reduction for a control device
other than a condenser used during an emission episode (i), as
determined, pursuant to Sec. 65.828.
(b) Uncontrolled emissions. You must calculate uncontrolled
emissions from all process equipment according to the procedures
described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to demonstrate
initial compliance with a percent reduction emission limit in a
referencing subpart for batch process operations, including operations
in combined streams of continuous and batch unit operations. You must
also use these procedures if you choose to develop an emission profile
by process, as specified in Sec. 65.822(c)(1).
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, you must
determine uncontrolled emissions of regulated material using
measurements and/or calculations for each batch emission episode within
each unit operation using the emission estimation techniques described
in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 65.265). Chemical property data can be obtained
from standard reference texts.
(2) You must conduct an engineering assessment according to Sec.
65.830 in order to calculate uncontrolled regulated material emissions
for each emission episode that is not described in Section 3 of EPA
EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
65.265). You may also conduct an engineering assessment according to
Sec. 65.830 if you meet the requirements of paragraphs (d)(3) or (e)
of this section. Data or other information supporting a finding that
the emissions estimation equations are inappropriate are subject to
preapproval by the Administrator and must be reported in the batch pre-
compliance report.
(c) Controlled emissions. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of
this section, you must calculate controlled emissions using the percent
reduction for the control device, as determined from the performance
test required in Sec. 65.828 to demonstrate initial compliance with a
percent reduction emission limit in a referencing subpart for batch
process operations, including batch process operations in combined
streams of continuous and batch unit operations.
(d) Controlled emissions from condensers. For a condenser used as
control, you may calculate controlled emissions from the condenser
using the procedures specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this
section to demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction
emission limit in a referencing subpart for batch process operations,
including batch process operations in combined streams of continuous
and batch unit operations.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, you
must determine controlled emissions from the condenser using
calculations for each batch emission episode within each unit operation
according to the emission estimation techniques described in Section 3
of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
65.265). You must use the temperature and regulated material partial
pressures that are determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure
conditions of the condenser. Chemical property data can be obtained
from standard reference texts.
(2) For heating and depressurization episodes, you must determine
controlled emissions from the condenser using the procedures, as
specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) You must determine the average molecular weight of regulated
material in vapor exiting the receiver using Equation 14 of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.147
Where:
MWRM = Average molecular weight of regulated material in
vapor exiting the receiver.
(Pi)T1 = Partial pressure of each regulated
material in the vessel headspace at initial temperature of the
receiver.
(Pi)T2 = Partial pressure of each regulated
material in the vessel headspace at final temperature of the
receiver.
MWi = Molecular weight of the individual regulated
material.
n = Number of regulated material compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a regulated material compound.
[[Page 18037]]
(ii) You must determine the number of moles of non-condensable gas
displaced from the vessel using Equation 15 of this section for heating
episodes; and Equation 16 of this section for depressurization
episodes, as applicable.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.148
Where:
[Delta][eta] = Number of moles of non-condensable gas displaced from
the vessel being heated or depressurized.
V = Volume of free space in the vessel being heated or
depressurized.
R = Ideal gas law constant.
Pnc1 = Initial partial pressure of the non-condensable
gas in the headspace of the vessel being heated or depressurized.
Pnc2 = Final partial pressure of the non-condensable gas
in the headspace of the vessel being heated or depressurized.
T1 = Initial temperature of the vessel contents being
heated.
T2 = Final temperature of the vessel contents being
heated.
T = Exit temperature of the receiver.
(iii) You must determine the mass of regulated material emitted
from the receiver due to the vessel being heated or depressurized using
Equation 17 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MR12.149
Where:
E = Mass of regulated material emitted from the receiver due to the
vessel being heated or depressurized.
[Delta][eta] = The number of moles of non-condensable displaced from
the vessel being heated or depressurized, as calculated for heating
episodes using Equation 15 of this section; or as calculated for
depressurization episodes using Equation 16 of this section.
PT = Pressure in the receiver.
Pi = Partial pressure of each individual regulated
material determined at the temperature of the receiver.
Pj = Partial pressure of each individual condensable
(including regulated material) determined at the temperature of the
receiver.
n = Number of regulated material compounds in the emission stream.
i = Identifier for a regulated material compound.
j = Identifier for a condensable compound.
MWRM = Average molecular weight of regulated material in
vapor exiting the receiver, as calculated using Equation 14 of this
section.
m = Number of condensable compounds (including regulated material)
in the emission stream.
(3) You must conduct an engineering assessment, as specified in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, for each emission episode that is not
described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 65.265).
(4) You may elect to conduct an engineering assessment, as
specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you demonstrate to the
Administrator that the methods described in paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) of
this section are not appropriate.
(e) Modified emission estimation technique. Instead of calculating
uncontrolled emissions, as specified in Sec. 65.835(b)(1) of this
section, or instead of calculating controlled emissions from a
condenser used as a control device, as specified in Sec. 65.835(d)(1)
and (2) of this section, you may conduct an engineering assessment, as
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if you can demonstrate
to the Administrator that the emission estimation techniques in Section
3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 65.265) are not appropriate. The engineering assessment can
result in modified versions of the emission estimation techniques
described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 65.265) if you demonstrate that they have been
used to meet other regulatory obligations, and they do not affect
applicability assessments or compliance determinations under the
referencing subpart. One criterion you could use to demonstrate that
the emission estimation techniques described in Section 3 of EPA EIIP
Volume II: Chapter 16 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 65.265) are
not appropriate is if previous test data are available that show a
greater than 20- percent discrepancy between the test value and the
estimated value.
Design Evaluation
Sec. 65.850 How do I demonstrate compliance through design
evaluation?
(a) For each non-flare control device for which a design
evaluation, as allowed by the referencing subpart, is used as an
alternative to a performance test, as specified in Sec. 65.702(e)(1),
you must conduct the design evaluation according to the procedures in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(b) You must prepare a design evaluation, as specified in paragraph
(c) of this section. Also, unless you are using a CEMS to monitor the
emissions to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard of the
referencing subpart, you must prepare a monitoring description, as
specified in paragraph (d) of this section. The design
[[Page 18038]]
evaluation and monitoring description must be submitted with the
Notification of Compliance Status Report, as specified in Sec.
65.880(c). You must comply with Sec. 63.711 for all CEMS.
(c) The design evaluation must include documentation demonstrating
that the control device being used achieves the required emission limit
of a referencing subpart. You must identify in the design evaluation,
each emission point routed to the control device and the applicable
emission limit. The design evaluation must also address the composition
of the vent stream entering the control device, including flow and
regulated material concentration, and the information specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section and Sec. 65.724(d) for
boilers and process heaters, Sec. 65.726(c) for thermal oxidizers,
Sec. 65.728(c) for catalytic oxidizers, Sec. 65.740(c) for absorbers,
Sec. 65.742(d) for adsorbers regenerated onsite, Sec. 65.744(c) for
non-regenerative adsorbers, Sec. 65.746(c) for condensers, Sec.
65.748(d) for biofilters, Sec. 65.760(d) for sorbent injection and
Sec. 65.762(c) for fabric filters, as applicable.
(1) For storage vessels, the design evaluation must include
documentation demonstrating that the control device being used achieves
the required control efficiency during reasonably expected maximum
filling rate.
(2) For transfer racks, the design evaluation must demonstrate that
the control device achieves the required control efficiency during the
reasonably expected maximum transfer loading rate.
(3) For a non-flare control device used to control emissions from
batch process operations, establish emission profiles and conduct the
evaluation under worst-case conditions, as determined, pursuant to
Sec. 65.822.
(4) If the vent stream is not the only inlet to the control device,
the efficiency demonstration also must consider all other vapors, gases
and liquids other than fuels received by the control device.
(d) The monitoring description must include the information
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section to identify the
operating parameters that you will monitor to assure proper operation
of the control device such that the control device is meeting the
specified emission limit of the referencing subpart.
(1) A description of the operating parameter or parameters to be
monitored, an explanation of the criteria used for selection of that
parameter (or parameters) and when the monitoring will be performed
(e.g., when the liquid level in the storage vessel is being raised). If
continuous records are specified, indicate whether the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 65.712 and 65.713 apply.
(2) The operating limit, monitoring frequency (e.g., every 15
minutes), and averaging time for each operating parameter identified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The specified operating limit must
represent the conditions for which the control device is being properly
operated and maintained such that the control device is meeting the
specified emission limit of the referencing subpart.
(e) You must operate and maintain the non-flare control device so
that the monitored operating parameters, as determined in paragraph (d)
of this section, remain within the operating limits specified in the
Notification of Compliance Status whenever emissions of regulated
material are routed to the control device.
Recordkeeping
Sec. 65.855 How do I calculate monitoring data averages?
(a) Data averages for compliance. You must calculate monitoring
data averages, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section, as applicable.
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of this
section, daily average values of continuously monitored emissions and
operating parameters must be calculated for each operating day using
all continuously monitored data, except the data specified in paragraph
(b) of this section must be excluded from the average. The operating
day must be the period defined in the operating permit or in the
Notification of Compliance Status.
(2) For batch process operations and as an alternative to the
requirement for daily averages in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you
may determine averages for operating blocks while excluding the data
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) If all values of a monitored operating parameter, during an
operating day or operating block, are below the operating limit
established, pursuant to Sec. 65.713, you do not have to calculate the
daily average for the operating parameter. In such cases, you may not
discard the recorded values, as allowed in Sec. 65.860(a)(2).
(4) If all values of monitored continuous emissions, during an
operating day or operating block, reduced, as specified in Sec.
65.711(j), are below the emission limit specified in the referencing
subpart, you do not have to calculate the daily or block average of the
emissions. In such cases, you may not discard the recorded values, as
allowed in Sec. 65.860(a)(2).
(b) Excluded data. In computing averages to determine compliance,
as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, you must exclude
monitoring data recorded during periods identified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or portion
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
monitoring applies.
(2) Periods of no flow to a control device, as recorded, pursuant
to paragraph Sec. 65.860(i).
(3) Any monitoring data recorded during CEMS or CPMS system
breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs, maintenance periods,
instrument adjustments or checks to maintain precision and accuracy,
calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-level (if applicable) and
high-level adjustments.
(c) Data averages for recording. For the purposes of recording and
in addition to the averages specified in paragraph (a) of this section,
you may calculate hourly averages of continuous parameter monitoring
and continuous emissions data from all measured values or, if measured
more frequently than once per minute, from at least one measured value
per minute. The hourly averages may include values of excluded periods,
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The hourly averages may
be retained as an alternative to retaining records of all measured
values if the provisions of Sec. 65.860(a)(2) are met.
Sec. 65.860 What records must I keep?
(a) Continuous monitoring data records. You must maintain records,
as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section, as
applicable.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you
must maintain a record of each measured value measured at least once
every 15 minutes.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, or in
Sec. 65.855(a)(4) through (6), you may calculate and record block
hourly average values calculated, as specified in Sec. 65.855(c) and
discard all but the most recent 3 hours of continuous (15-minute or
shorter) records that do not include deviations that are specified in
Sec. 65.710(e). If you select this method for retaining monitoring
data, you must also meet the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section.
(i) You must retain a file that contains a hard copy of the data
acquisition
[[Page 18039]]
system algorithm used to reduce the measured data into the reportable
form of the standard and calculate the hourly averages.
(ii) The 1-hour averages may include measurements taken during
periods of CEMS or CPMS system breakdowns, out-of-control periods,
repairs, maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to
maintain precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-
level), mid-level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments. However,
you must not include these periods for any average computed to
determine compliance, as specified in Sec. 65.855(a).
(iii) A record must be maintained stating whether the calculated 1-
hour averages include, or do not include, measurements taken during
periods of CEMS or CPMS breakdowns, out-of-control periods, repairs,
maintenance periods, instrument adjustments or checks to maintain
precision and accuracy, calibration checks, and zero (low-level), mid-
level (if applicable) and high-level adjustments.
(3) The Administrator, upon notification to you, may require you to
maintain all measurements, as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, if the Administrator determines these records are required to
more accurately assess the compliance status of the regulated source.
(4) You must keep records of all applicable daily and operating
block averages, as calculated, pursuant to Sec. 65.855(a).
(5) You must keep records of periods of operation during which the
daily average of monitored operating parameters, calculated as
specified in Sec. 65.855(a), is outside the operating limits
established, pursuant to Sec. 65.713.
(6) You must keep records of periods of operation during which the
daily average of continuous emissions, calculated as specified in Sec.
65.855(a), is above the emission standard specified in the referencing
subpart.
(b) Non-continuous monitoring records. You must keep up-to-date and
readily accessible records, as specified in Sec. 65.728(f) for
catalytic oxidizers, Sec. 65.742(j) for adsorbers regenerated onsite,
Sec. 65.744(k) for non-regenerative adsorbers, Sec. 65.746(e) for
condensers, Sec. 65.760(g) for sorbent injection and Sec. 65.762(e)
for fabric filters.
(c) Performance test records. For each performance test conducted,
pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, and for any prior
performance test that is accepted in place of a performance test
conducted, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 65.820 through 65.829, you must keep
readily accessible records of the data specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section, as applicable, recorded over the full
period of the performance test, as well as averages calculated over the
full period of the performance test.
(1) The records specified in Sec. 65.724(e) for boilers and
process heaters, Sec. 65.726(d) for thermal oxidizers, Sec. 65.728(d)
for catalytic oxidizers, Sec. 65.740(d) for absorbers, Sec. 65.742(h)
for adsorbers regenerated onsite, Sec. 65.744(d) for non-regenerative
adsorbers, Sec. 65.746(e) for condensers, Sec. 65.748(e) for
biofilters, Sec. 65.760(e) for sorbent injection, Sec. 65.762(d) for
fabric filters and Sec. 65.800(c) for other control devices.
(2) The concentration of regulated material or total organic
compounds (ppmv, by compound), as applicable, at the outlet of the
control device, as specified in Sec. 65.826; or the percent reduction
of regulated material or total organic compounds, as applicable,
achieved by the control device, as specified in Sec. 65.828.
(3) You must retain copies of the performance test reports during
the period that the performance tests are applicable to the operating
limits being complied with and 5 years after the time they become
obsolete. A complete test report must include the items listed in
paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (xvii) of this section. A performance test
is ``completed'' when field sample collection is terminated.
(i) The purpose of the test.
(ii) A brief process description.
(iii) A complete unit description, including a description of feed
streams and control devices.
(iv) Sampling site description.
(v) Pollutants measured.
(vi) Description of sampling and analysis procedures and any
modifications to standard procedures.
(vii) Quality assurance procedures.
(viii) Record of operating conditions during the test, including
the records required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(ix) Record of preparation of standards.
(x) Record of calibrations.
(xi) Raw data sheets for field sampling.
(xii) Raw data sheets for field and laboratory analyses.
(xiii) Chain-of-custody documentation.
(xiv) Explanation of laboratory data qualifiers.
(xv) Example calculations of all applicable stack gas parameters,
emission rates, percent reduction rates and analytical results, as
applicable.
(xvi) Any other information required by the test method or the
Administrator.
(xvii) Any additional information necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(d) CMS records. You must maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The CEMS performance evaluation and monitoring plan and the
CPMS monitoring plan, as applicable, developed and implemented, as
specified in Sec. Sec. 65.711 and 65.712, respectively.
(2) Results of all CEMS evaluations, as specified in the CEMS
performance evaluation and monitoring plan and, as specified in Sec.
65.711, including the information listed in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)
through (v) of this section.
(i) Raw CEMS evaluation measurements.
(ii) All measurements necessary to determine the conditions of the
CEMS evaluation.
(iii) Raw performance testing measurements associated with relative
accuracy tests and audits.
(iv) Cylinder gas certifications.
(v) Information specified to be recorded in the applicable
performance specification.
(3) Records of all calibrations, certifications, audits,
adjustments and other quality control procedures required in the CEMS
performance evaluation and monitoring plan or CPMS monitoring plan.
(4) If you use more than one CEMS to measure the regulated
materials from one emissions unit (e.g., multiple breechings, multiple
outlets), you must maintain records for both CEMS. However, if you use
one CEMS as a backup to another CEMS, you must maintain records for the
CEMS used to meet the monitoring requirements of this part.
(e) General process records. You must maintain records of the
information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) A description of the process and the type of process equipment
used, including a description of storage vessels, wastewater, transfer
operations or heat exchangers that are subject to this subpart.
(2) An identification of related vent streams, including, for batch
operations, their associated emissions episodes.
(3) The applicable control requirements of this subpart, including
the level of required control for each emission point.
(4) The control device(s) and/or methods used on each regulated
emission point to meet the emission standard, including a description
of the operating conditions of the control device.
[[Page 18040]]
(5) Combined emissions that are routed to the same control device.
(6) The applicable monitoring requirements of this subpart and the
operating limit(s) that apply for each emission point routed to the
control device.
(7) Calculations and engineering analyses required to demonstrate
compliance.
(8) Actual total monthly process operating time.
(f) Batch process records. You must keep records for batch process
operations, as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) You must keep a schedule or log of operating scenarios, updated
each time you put a different operating scenario into effect. You must
maintain records in your daily schedule or log of processes indicating
each point at which an emission episode with a different operating
limit begins and ends, even if the duration of the emission episode and
the monitoring for an operating limit is less than 15 minutes.
(2) For each operating scenario, you must record a justification
demonstrating that the operating limit selected for the operating
scenario (or operating limits selected for the individual emission
episodes of the operating scenario) will not result in emissions in
excess of the emissions standards. All calculations and engineering
analyses performed to develop the operating limits must be included in
the records. For the purposes of this paragraph, a revised operating
scenario for an existing proc